Agenda item

The report was introduced and slides presented by the Planning Officer which were noted by the Committee in addition to the addendum.

Rt Hon. Theresa Villiers MP, Councillor Richard Cornelius, Councillor Thomas Smith and Fional Halstead spoke in objection to the application.

*Councillor Bokaei and Councillor Brayne joined the meeting part way through discussion of the item and therefore did not vote on this item.

Further to discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to vote to recommend approval of the planning application to the Planning Inspectorate. The votes were recorded as follows:

For (approval): 0

Against (approval): 9

Abstained: 0

RESOLVED that application not be recommended to the Planning Inspectorate for approval.

Members moved to vote on reasons for refusal and unanimously agreed to the following reason.

The proposed development, by virtue of its excessive height, scale, massing and density would represent an over development of the site resulting in a discordant and visually obtrusive form of development that would demonstrably fail to respect the local context and established pattern of development, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, and the visual amenity of adjoining residential occupiers. The proposal would therefore not create a high-quality building, not constitute a sustainable form of development and would be contrary to the provisions of the NPPF, Policies D3, D4 and D9 of the London Plan 2021 and policies CS5, DM01 and DM05 of the Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

Councillor Sowerby, seconded by Councillor Teare moved a motion to recommend a further reason for refusal to the Planning Inspectorate as follows;

The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to meet the costs of provision of affordable housing, affordable workspace, carbon off-setting, highways mitigation, non-financial and financial skills, employment, enterprise and training obligations, or street scene and street tree improvements. Moreover, the quantum of development and absence of appropriate secured mitigation would result in an undue strain being placed upon local health services The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to Policies CS5, CS9 and CS11 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), policies DM01, DM04, DM10 and DM17 of the Development Management Policies (adopted September 2012) and the Planning Obligations SPD (adopted April 2013), Paragraph 8 of the NPPF, Policy S2 of the London Plan 2021.

Votes on the motion to include the second reason for refusal outlined above were recorded as follows:

For: 6

Against: 3

Abtsain: 0

RESOLVED that the second reason for refusal be included in the recommendation to the Planning Inspectorate.

The Chairman then moved to vote on the two reasons for refusal, as outlined above. Votes were recorded as follows:

For (Refusal): 9

Against (Refusal): 0

Abstain: 0

RESOLVED that the application be recommended for refusal to the Planning Inspectorate for the following reasons:

 1.         The proposed development, by virtue of its excessive height, scale, massing and density would represent an over development of the site resulting in a discordant and visually obtrusive form of development that would demonstrably fail to respect the local context and established pattern of development, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, and the visual amenity of adjoining residential occupiers. The proposal would therefore not create a high-quality building, not constitute a sustainable form of development and would be contrary to the provisions of the NPPF, Policies D3, D4 and D9 of the London Plan 2021 and policies CS5, DM01 and DM05 of the Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012’

2.         The proposed development does not include a formal undertaking to meet the costs of provision of affordable housing, affordable workspace, carbon off-setting, highways mitigation, non-financial and financial skills, employment, enterprise and training obligations, or street scene and street tree improvements. Moreover, the quantum of development and absence of appropriate secured mitigation would result in an undue strain being placed upon local health services The proposal would therefore not address the impacts of the development, contrary to Policies CS5, CS9 and CS11 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), policies DM01, DM04, DM10 and DM17 of the Development Management Policies (adopted September 2012) and the Planning Obligations SPD (adopted April 2013), Paragraph 8 of the NPPF, Policy S2 of the London Plan 2021.