Agenda item

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 deletions be first approved by the Committee).

The Chair called for a comfort break at 8:32pm and the meeting was adjourned and returned at 8:39pm.