Council decisions

The Council has been undertaking works to Hendon Cemetery and Crematorium as part of a plan to enhance facilities at the site. Phase 2 of these works involved essential restoration and renovation works to the Gatehouse which have been undertaken via a JCT Design & Build contract with City Axis Limited.

Approval to enter into this contract, at a cost of £873,538.57, was given via DPR in October 2019. Further to agreement of the Final Account this report is now seeking approval to vary the contract to a revised value of £1,049,557.47, with the option to pay up to an additional £5,000 towards remaining risk items if necessary. These additional costs are containable within the existing budget.

1. To approve a variation to the existing JCT Design & Build contract between the Council and City Axis Limited for restoration and renovation works at Hendon Cemetery Gatehouse, to include everything agreed in the Final Account, from the previously approved contact value of £873,538.57 to a revised value of £1,049,557.47

2. To approve a further payment of up to £5,000 to City Axis to cover any additional valid costs relating to building control sign off, bond payments and fire alarm interfacing.

To authorise the sealing of the Deed of Variation to the Grahame Park Principal Development Agreement.

The report and addendum were introduced by the Planning Officer. 

The agent for the applicant, Ms Meera Bedi, had registered to speak in favour of the application, but declined to do so when invited by the Chairman.

Having considered the report, the Chairman moved to vote on the officers’ recommendations.  The vote was recorded as follows:

RESOLVED that the application be approved in accordance with the officer’s report and the addendum to the report.

The report and addendum were introduced by the Planning Officer. 

Verbal representations against the application were heard from Miss Debra Peters, Mrs Michela Chramosilova, Matthew Offord MP, Councillor Weeden-Sanz and Cllr Gill Sargeant (Colindale Ward Member).  Verbal representations in support of the application were heard from the agent for the applicant, Mr Ed Noble. Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask all speakers questions.

The Committee debated the item. 

Having considered the report, the Chairman moved to VOTE on the officers’ recommendations.  The vote was recorded as follows:

The Chairman exercised his right to use his casting vote in favour of the officers’ recommendation to approve the application. 

RESOLVED that the application be approved in accordance with the officer’s report and the addendum to the report.

The report and addendum were introduced by the Planning Officer. 

Verbal representations against the application were heard from Ms Sarah Rubinson and Mrs Priya Velan.  Verbal representations in support of the application were heard from the agent for the applicant, Mr Gerry Cassidy. Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask all speakers questions.

The Committee debated the item. 

Having considered the report, the Chairman moved to vote on the officers’ recommendations.  The vote was recorded as follows:

RESOLVED that the application be approved in accordance with the officer’s report and the addendum to the report.

Note: Due to technical issues, Councillor Brayne had not been present for the whole discussion on this item.  She therefore did not take part in the vote on this application.

The Chairman advised the Committee that the application had been fully considered at the previous meeting.  He advised the Committee the only discussion that would take place would be on the proposed reasons for refusal as set out in the agenda. 

The Committee noted that Councillor Bokaei would not be able to vote on this item as she had not been present for the discussion on this item at the previous meeting.

The Chairman proposed an amendment to the proposed reason for refusal as set out below (additions highlighted in bold):

“1. The proposed development by virtue of its siting and layout would result in the loss of open green land which forms an important part of this part of the Wood Street Conservation Area. This loss is considered to be adversely harmful and does not preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the designated heritage asset and is harmful to the visual amenity of the neighbouring residents, contrary to the NPPF, London Plan Policy 7.8, Policies CS5, CS7, Policies DM01, DM06 and DM15 of Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (2012); Development Management Policies (2012) and the Wood Street Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement (2007).”

The Chairman moved to VOTE on the proposed reasons for refusal as set out in the report and as amended above.  The vote was recorded as follows:

The Chairman exercised his right to use his casting vote in favour of the proposed reasons for refusal. 

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.     The proposed development by virtue of its siting and layout would result in the loss of open green land which forms an important part of this part of the Wood Street Conservation Area. This loss is considered to be adversely harmful and does not preserve or enhance the special character or appearance of the designated heritage asset and is harmful to the visual amenity of the neighbouring residents, contrary to the NPPF, London Plan Policy 7.8, Policies CS5, CS7, Policies DM01, DM06 and DM15 of Barnet Local Plan Core Strategy (2012); Development Management Policies (2012) and the Wood Street Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement (2007).

2.     In the absence of a Section 106 Agreement, the application does not include a formal undertaking to secure the planning obligations which are necessary to make the application acceptable. The application is therefore contrary to the NPPF; London Plan Policies 3.12, 3.13, 5.2, 6.3, 8.2, Policies DM04, DM10, DM15 and DM17, Policies CS4, CS7,CS9, CS13, CS15 of Barnet Local Plan Development Management (2012) and Core Strategy (2012); the Barnet Planning Obligations (adopted April 2013); Affordable Housing (adopted February 2007 and August 2010) Supplementary Planning Document; the Barnet Supplementary Planning Document on Delivering Skills, Employment and Enterprise Training (SEET) (adopted October 2014); and the Mayor’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing and Viability (2017).

The Committee noted that the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2020 had been circulated separately.

At the invitation of the Chairman, the Governance Officer advised the Committee of a proposed correction to minute item 7 (Whalebones Wood Street Barnet EN5 4BZ – 19/3949/FUL). 

Delete:

“As outlined in the Council’s Constitution, Article 7, The Chairman exercised his right to use his casting vote to refuse the application. The Chairman sought views on reasons for refusal.

Having received the view of the Legal Officer, Mr Jimmy Walsh The Chairman moved that the reasons for refusal be deferred to the next meeting of the Planning Committee, this was seconded by Councillor Cohen. The Chairman requested that this be voted on. The vote was recorded as follows:

Resolved:

- That the item be refused

- That the reasons for refusal be reported to the next meeting.”

Replace with:

“The Chairman exercised his right to use his casting vote against the officers’ recommendation to approve the application.

Councillor Cohen moved that the application be refused which was seconded by the Chairman.  Debate took place on the reasons for refusal.  Following debate, the Chairman moved that the application be deferred and that detailed reasons should be drafted by officers and reported to the next meeting of the Committee.  This was seconded by Councillor Cohen.  The Chairman requested that this be voted on.  The vote was recorded as follows:

RESOLVED that the application be deferred with detailed reasons for refusal to be drafted for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.” 

Following discussion on the proposed correction, the Committee agreed the revised wording as set out above.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2020 be agreed as a correct record, subject to the amendment outlined above.