Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 23 January 2023 were deferred until the next meeting.

None.

Cllr Conway declared an interest in that he had called in both items 13 and 14 as ward councillor. 

None.

Items contained within the addendum were dealt with under individual agenda items. The Committee noted the addendum to the Planning Agenda which was published and circulated prior to the meeting.

The report and addendum were introduced, and slides presented by the Planning Officer.

The Committee received verbal representations from Tim Waters who spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee received verbal statement from Wiemer Kuik in support of the application, as read out by the Governance officer.

The Committee received a verbal representation from ward councillor Cllr Innocenti who spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee received verbal a representation from Stuart Minty, the Agent for the Applicant.

The Committee had the opportunity to ask questions of the speaker and officers.

Following discussions, the Committee voted on the Officer recommendation to approve the application as set out in the report.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Approval): 2

Against (Approval): 4

Abstention: 0

Not present: 0

RESOLVED that the application not be approved.

Councillor Mittra, seconded by Councillor Sargeant moved a motion to refuse the application for the following reasons:

-The proposed development, by reason of its excessive size, height, scale and massing, would be visually discordant and detrimental the to the character and appearance of the streetscene and wider locality, contrary to policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012), Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

-The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking for submission of a Travel Plan, Section 184 Agreement or Local Employment Agreement or to meet the costs of monitoring the Travel Plan, contribution to carbon off-set fund or agreement monitoring fee. The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to Policies CS5, CS9 and CS13 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), policies DM04, DM14 and DM17 of the Development Management Policies (adopted September 2012), the  Delivering Skills, Employment, Enterprise and Training from Development through S106 SPD (adopted October 2014), the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted October 2016) and the Planning Obligations SPD (adopted April 2013).

The committee unanimously agreed the reasons for refusal.

Votes on the motion to refuse for the reason outlined above were recorded as follows:

For (Refusal): 4

Against (Refusal):2

Abstention:0

Therefore, the application was REFUSED.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

-The proposed development, by reason of its excessive size, height, scale and massing, would be visually discordant and detrimental the to the character and appearance of the streetscene and wider locality, contrary to policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012), Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

-The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking for submission of a Travel Plan, Section 184 Agreement or Local Employment Agreement or to meet the costs of monitoring the Travel Plan, contribution to carbon off-set fund or agreement monitoring fee. The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report and addendum were introduced, and slides presented by the Planning Officer.

The Committee received a verbal representation from Councillor David Longstaff who spoke in relation to the application.

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Architect, George Kythereotis on behalf of the Applicant.

The Committee had the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers.

Councillor Mittra proposed, Councillor Sargeant seconded an amendment to condition 8: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 2007, as amended, no advertisement displays or structures shall be displayed inside the building or on the external elevations of the building.

Votes on this amendment were recorded as follows:

For (Approval): 5

Against (Approval): 1

Abstention: 0

Following discussions, the Committee voted on the Officer recommendation to approve the application subject to conditions as set out in the addendum and report.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Approval): 5

Against (Approval): 1

Abstention: 0

RESOLVED that the application was APPROVED subject to conditions AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations 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 report and addendum were introduced, and slides presented by the Planning Officer.

The Committee received verbal representations from Marysol Elimer who spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee received verbal representations from the Agent, Malcom Clark for the Applicant.

The Committee had the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers.

Following discussions, the Committee voted on the Officer recommendation to approve the application subject to conditions as set out in the addendum and report.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Approval): 5

Against (Approval): 0

Abstention: 1

RESOLVED that the application was APPROVED subject to conditions AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations 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 Chair requested the meeting be adjourned for the purposes of a break at 9.16pm.

*The meeting continued at 9.22pm

The report was introduced, and slides presented by the Planning Officer.

The Committee received verbal representations from the Mary Crowley and Peter Lusher who spoke in objection of the application.

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Agent, Kevin O’Connor for the Applicant.

The Committee had the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers.

Following discussions, the Committee voted on the Officer recommendation to approve the application subject to conditions as set out in the report.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Approval): 2

Against (Approval): 3

Abstention: 1

RESOLVED that the application not be approved.

Councillor Sargeant, seconded by Councillor Vourou moved a motion to refuse the application for the following reasons:

The proposed development, by reason of its excessive size and scale, when considered cumulatively with existing extensions to the property, would represent an overdevelopment of the site which would be detrimental the character and appearance of the property and wider locality, contrary to policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012), Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

The committee unanimously agreed the reasons for refusal.

Votes on the motion to refuse for the reason outlined above were recorded as follows:

For (Refusal): 3

Against (Refusal):2

Abstention:1

Therefore, the application was REFUSED.

RESOLVED that the application was REFUSED for the following reasons: 

- The proposed development, by reason of its excessive size and scale, when considered cumulatively with existing extensions to the property, would represent an overdevelopment of the site which would be detrimental the character and appearance of the property and wider locality, contrary to policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet's Adopted Core Strategy (2012), policy DM01 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD (2012), Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, and the Adopted Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016).

The Chair exercised her discretion to continue the meeting until 10:30pm. The Committee was in agreement

The report was introduced, and slides presented by the Planning Officer.

The Committee had the opportunity to ask questions of the officers.

Following discussions, the Committee voted on the Officer recommendation to approve the application subject to conditions as set out in the report.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Approval): 6

Against (Approval): 0

Abstention: 0

Therefore, the application was APPROVED.

RESOLVED that the application was APPROVED subject to conditions AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations 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 report was introduced, and slides presented by the Planning Officer.

The Committee received a verbal representation from ward councillor, Cllr Rishikesh Chakraborty who spoke in objection of the application.

The Committee had the opportunity to ask questions of the officers.

Following discussions, the Committee voted on the Officer recommendation to approve the application subject to conditions as set out in the report.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Approval): 5

Against (Approval): 1

Abstention: 0

Therefore, the application was APPROVED.

RESOLVED that the application was APPROVED subject to conditions AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended conditions/obligations 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 report was introduced, and slides presented by the Planning Officer.

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Applicant, Samuel Epstein.

The Committee had the opportunity to ask questions of the speaker and officers.

Following discussions, the Committee voted on the Officer recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the report.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Refusal): 2

Against (Refusal): 3

Abstention: 1

Therefore, the application was APPROVED.

Councillor Mearing Smith, seconded by Councillor Conway moved a motion to approve the application for the following reasons:

Members of the committee considered that, given the presence of large dormer extensions locally, the development would not be out of keeping with the character or appearance of the wider area.

The committee unanimously agreed the reasons for approval.

Votes on the motion to approve for the reason outlined above were recorded as follows:

For (Approval): 3

Against (Approval):1

Abstention:2

Therefore, the application was APPROVED.

RESOLVED that the application was approved for the following reasons:

1.  The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

4D-238A E 01  Existing floor plans

4D-238A P 01  Proposed floor plans

4D-238A E 02  Existing loft and roof plans

4D-238A P 02  Existing loft and roof plans

4D-238A E 03  Existing front and rear elevations

4D-238A P 03  Proposed front and rear elevations

4D-238A E 04  Existing side elevations

4D-238A P 04  Proposed side elevations

4D-238A E 05  Existing sections

4D-238A P 05  Proposed sections

4D-238A E 06  Existing front isometric view

4D-238A P 06  Proposed front isometric view

4D-238A E 07  Existing rear isometric view

4D-238A P 07  Proposed rear isometric view

4D-238A E 00  Block and location plans

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and so as to ensure that the development is carried out fully in accordance with the plans as assessed in accordance with Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

2.  This development must be begun within three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3.  The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the building(s) shall match those used in the existing building(s).

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the building and surrounding area in accordance with Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012).

4.  Notwithstanding the provisions of any development order made under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no windows or doors, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be placed at any time in the flank elevation(s), of the extension(s) hereby approved, facing 49 Boyne Avenue.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The report and addendum were introduced, and slides presented by the Planning Officer.

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Applicant, Mr Patcas

The Committee had the opportunity to ask questions of the officers.

Following discussions, the Committee voted on the Officer recommendation to refuse the application as set out in the report and addendum.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Refusal): 1

Against (Refusal): 3

Abstention:2

RESOLVED that the application be approved.

Councillor Mearing Smith, seconded by Councillor Conway moved a motion to approve the application for the following reasons:

Members of the committee considered, on balance, in these particular circumstances, that the harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the character and appearance of the property, is outweighed by the personal circumstances of the applicant.

Proposed conditions:

1.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Pre-existing Plans: EX-P001, EX-P002, EX-P003, EX-P004, EX-E001, X-E002, EX-S001, dated January 2021.

As built plans: PR01, PR02, PR03, PR04, PR05, PR06, dated January 2022

Proposed plans: 112A P01, 112A P02, 112A P03, 112A P04, 112A P05, 112A P06, dated 01.04.2022

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and so as to ensure that the development is carried out fully in accordance with the plans as assessed in accordance with Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

2.The development shall be implemented in accordance with the hereby approved plans within 4 months from the date of this permission.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and so as to ensure that the development is carried out fully in accordance with the plans as assessed in accordance with Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

3.The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the building(s) shall match those used in the existing building(s).

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the building and surrounding area in accordance with Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012).

4.Notwithstanding the provisions of any development order made under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no windows or doors shall be placed at any time in the side elevation facing No.7 Marlborough Avenue

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties in accordance with policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

5.The roof of the extension hereby permitted shall only be used in connection with the repair and maintenance of the building and shall at no time be converted to or used  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

None.