Agenda item

Blocks 7- 9 Chandos Way and Blocks 1 To 6 Britten Close London NW11 7HW (Garden Suburb) - 20/3784/PNV

Minutes:

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).

 

  1. 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).

 

  1. 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).

 

  1. 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, Policy CS9 of Barnet's Core Strategy DPD (2012), Policy DM17 of Barnet's Development Management Policies Document DPD (2012) and the Planning Obligations SPD (2013).

 

The vote recorded was:

For – 11

Against – 0

Abstained – 1

 

RESOLVED that the Committee agree to overturn the Officers recommendations and refuse the application for the reasons listed above.

 

Before the consideration of the following item, the Chairman, Councillor Ryde, reminded the Committee that both himself and Vice-Chairman, Councillor Melvin Cohen, had declared a personal interest and would therefore withdraw for the item.  As a result of this, the Chairman proposed that Councillor Greenspan take the chair for the item. This was seconded by Councillor Cohen and agreed unanimously by the Committee.  Councillor Ryde and Councillor Cohen both withdrew from the meeting and played no part in the consideration of the item or the voting process.  Councillor Greenspan in the chair.

 

Supporting documents: