Agenda item

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 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).