Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 30 March 2022 be agreed as a correct record.

Apologies were received from Councillor Tony Vourou.

The Chair and Councillor Mittra declared a non-pecuniary as one of the speakers on Item 8, Roger Chapman was known to them in their capacity as East Finchley, local ward councillors.

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 representation from David Ford who spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee received verbal representations from the Agent, Gardiner Hanson 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): 4

Against (Approval): 0

Abstention: 1

Not present: 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 report and addendum were introduced, and slides presented by the Planning Officer.

The Committee received verbal representation from Thomas Padgham who spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee received verbal representation from Rikesh Shah who spoke in support of the application.

The Committee received verbal representations from the Agent, Nicholas Lisowski 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 s106 and conditions as set out in the addendum and report.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Approval): 4

Against (Approval): 1

Abstention: 0

Not present: 1

RESOLVED that the application was APPROVED subject to conditions and s106 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 Deborah Linton and Roger Chapman who spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee received verbal representations from the Agent, Luke Raistrick 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 S106 as set out in the report and the addendum with an informative.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Approval): 2

Against (Approval): 3

Abstention: 0

Not present: 1

Therefore, the application was NOT APPROVED.

Councillor Mittra moved the motion to refuse the application, which was seconded by Councillor Farrier for the following reasons:

The proposed

1.            The proposed development, by reason of its size, siting, height, bulk and design, would be harmful to the character and appearance of this part of East Finchley and the town centre and the visual amenity of Cherry Tree Woods, as well as detracting from the enjoyment of users of Cherry Tree Woods, contrary to policies CS1, CS5 and CS7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), policies DM01 and DM15 of the Development Management Policies (adopted September 2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted October 2016).

2.            The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to meet the costs of provision of carbon off-set, highways mitigation, the loss of trees both on and off-site, the provision of affordable workspace, and the skills, employment, enterprise and training opportunities and contributions. The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to Policies CS5 and CS9 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), policies DM01, 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) and the Planning Obligations SPD (adopted April 2013).

3.            The proposed development would fail to provide adequate private amenity space for the occupiers of the development contrary to Council's standards set out within the adopted Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2016). The lack of a formal undertaking to meet the costs in lieu of this shortfall, would mean the development would fail to provide adequate mitigation, contrary to Policies DM01 and DM02 of the Development Management Policies (adopted September 2012) and the Planning Obligations SPD (adopted April 2013).

The vote on the motion to refuse the application was recorded as follows:

For (Refusal): 3

Against (Refusal): 2

Abstention: 0

Not present: 1

RESOLVED that the application was REFUSED AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the reasons for refusal 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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

The Committee received verbal representations from the Agent, Stuart Wighton 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: 0

Not present: 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 report and addendum were introduced, and slides presented by the Planning Officer.

The Committee received verbal representation from William Chen and Nelesh Patel who spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee received verbal representation from Councillor Rishikesh Chakraborty, the Local Ward Councillor, who spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee received verbal representations from the Agent, Paul Smith 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): 2

Against (Approval): 3

Abstention: 0

Not present: 1

Therefore, the application was NOT APPROVED.

Councillor Mittra moved the motion to refuse the application, which was seconded by Councillor Farrier for the following reasons:

1.            The proposed development by reason of its size, siting, bulk and height would appear overbearing, result in an increased sense of enclosure and reduced outlook, which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of Kennyland Court, contrary to policies CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies (adopted September 2012), the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted October 2016) and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted October 2016).

2.            The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to meet the costs of provision of affordable housing or to secure early and late stage viability reviews to assess potential contributions to affordable housing. The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to Policy DM08 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies (2012), CS15 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), and the Planning Obligations SPD (adopted April 2013), and Policy H5 of the London Plan 2021.

3.            The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to meet the costs of the required carbon off-set provision. The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to Policy SI.2 of the London Plan (2016), Policy CS9 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012) and Policy DM04 of the Adopted Development Management Policies DPD.

The vote on the motion to refuse the application was recorded as follows:

For (Refusal): 3

Against (Refusal): 2

Abstention: 0

Not present: 1

RESOLVED that the application was REFUSED AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the reasons for refusal 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).

Under Article 7.28 and Article 7.29 of the Constitution this item was not considered and duly deferred to the next meeting.

At 10pm the Chair under Article 7.29 of the constitution extend the period for the transaction of business to three and a half hours after the start time of the meeting.

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

The Committee received verbal representations from Peter Pickering and Melanie Sassienie who spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee received verbal representations from the Agent, Nicholas Lisowski 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 as set out in the report.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Approval): 2

Against (Approval): 3

Abstention: 0

Not present: 1

Therefore, the application was NOT APPROVED.

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

1.    The proposed side extension, by reason of its siting and design, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the property and the group of locally listed properties of which it forms part, contrary to policies CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), policies DM01 and DM06 of the Development Management Policies (adopted September 2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted October 2016).

The vote on the motion to refuse the application was recorded as follows:

For (Refusal): 3

Against (Refusal):2

Abstention: 0

Not present: 1

RESOLVED that the application was REFUSED AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the reasons for refusal 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).

Under Article 7.28 and Article 7.29 of the Constitution this item was not considered and duly deferred to the next meeting.

Under Article 7.28 and Article 7.29 of the Constitution this item was not considered and duly deferred to the next meeting.

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

The Committee received verbal representation from Alistair Falk who spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee received verbal representations from the Councillor Shooter the Local Ward Councillor, in support of the application.

The Committee received verbal representations from Barry Ackerman 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 refuse the application for the reasons as set out in the report.

Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Refusal): 3

Against (Refusal): 2

Abstention: 0

Not present: 1

RESOLVED that the application was REFUSED AND the Committee grants delegated authority to the Service Director – Planning and Building Control to make any minor alterations, additions or deletions to the reasons for refusal 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).

None.