Planning Committee - Wednesday 4th September, 2024 7.00 pm

September 4, 2024 View on council website  Watch video of meeting  Watch video of meeting or read trancript  Watch video of meeting or read trancript  Watch video of meeting or read trancript  Watch video of meeting or read trancript  Watch video of meeting or read trancript  Watch video of meeting or read trancript  Watch video of meeting or read trancript  Watch video of meeting
AI Generated

Summary

This meeting decided on a number of planning applications, including the approval of a reserved matters application for landscaping at 49 and 51 Beresford Avenue, the approval of change of use applications for Antian House and 49 St James Avenue to be used as children's homes, the approval of an application to vary a condition relating to levels on land to the West of Edgwarebury Farm, the approval of an application to extend Roman House, the approval of an application for a rear extension at 1 Daphne Close, the approval of an application for a rear outbuilding at 61 Finchley Lane, the approval of an application to change the use of a retail unit at 811 High Road, and the approval of an application to convert a building at 138 High Road into flats.

Land at 49 and 51 Beresford Avenue

This was a Reserved Matters application for the landscaping of 6 semi-detached dwellings at land at 49 and 51 Beresford Avenue. Outline planning permission for the development had been previously refused at committee, but this decision was overturned on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. The application was for the final details of the hard and soft landscaping required to discharge Condition 3 attached to planning permission 22/6069/OUT (appeal ref. APP/N5090/W/23/3321582). The Council's Highways and Arboricultural Officers were both satisfied with the scheme, and Network Rail confirmed that they had no objections. There were objections from members of the public concerning the location of railway tunnel air shafts underneath the site and the potential safety risks involved. The Officers responded that these details were to be addressed as part of a separate discharge of condition relating to the outline planning permission and did not need to be considered as part of this reserved matters application. The application was approved.

Antian House, 4A Rundell Crescent

This was an application to change the use of a single dwelling house (Use Class C31) at Antian House, 4 Rundell Crescent, into a residential children’s care home (Use Class C22). The care home would be for three children between the ages of 10 and 17, with 10 members of staff employed in total. No external changes were proposed. The applicant had previously submitted an application for a Lawful Development Certificate for change of use from C3(a) to C3(b), which was refused.

Local residents objected to the application, arguing that a care home would be out of character with the surrounding area, and raising concerns about traffic, parking and noise. Mr Sulman Rahman, on behalf of Mr Jimmy Hakim, described the negative impacts of the care home already operating at the site for the past year. He explained that there had been a number of incidents relating to the children using the home, and that he was concerned about the potential for crime and antisocial behaviour. He stated that:

the applicant's already been using this place as a children's, quote, children's home for a while now. Right. And it's been an absolute nightmare...the police have been there daily. It's a nightmare. People don't have any idea what this means. It's not 10 year old children, people bigger than me, wandering down the street, you know, at night. They have no control of the situation.

In response to concerns raised by Mr Rahman, Mr Asefa, director of the care home, stated that his company was an Ofsted regulated good provider with 10 years of experience running children’s homes, and denied that there had been any instances of crime or antisocial behaviour relating to the care home. He clarified that the children using the care home were boys between the ages of 10 and 15, and that there had been no female residents. He explained that two previous residents had been asked to leave the care home following incidents, but stated that this had occurred prior to a risk assessment having been undertaken and that there had been no further issues since then.

In response to concerns raised about the potential for anti-social behaviour, planning officers clarified that, whilst there were established procedures for dealing with noise complaints, anti-social behaviour was ultimately a matter for the police, and that the committee should focus on the planning merits of the application, rather than the operation of the care home. The application was approved.

49 St. James's Avenue

This was an application by Barnet Council for change of use of a dwelling house at 49 St. James's Avenue (Use Class C33) to a children’s home (Use Class C24). The proposed care home would accommodate up to three children aged between 11 and 14. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 25.

150 objections to the proposal were received from members of the public, compared to just one letter of support. Mr Ben Chung, speaking on behalf of residents Ms Zohra Siddiqui and Ms Faiza Siddiqui, stated that the principle of losing a family home was unacceptable, that there was no evidence that alternative sites had been properly considered and that the layout arrangement was substandard. He also argued that the proposed care home would be unsustainable, due to its low PTAL rating, and that there was a risk of antisocial behaviour.

Ms Brigitte Jordaan, Director of Children's Social Care at Barnet Council, explained that the council was committed to providing local placements for looked-after children, and that there was an acute shortage of suitable accommodation in the borough. She stated that:

Everybody, most people know that there is a national shortage of foster carers, and there is also a national shortage, or there's a local shortage of placements for children to remain in the local area...and one of the things that we've worked really hard at over the last few years is to make sure that we create local placements and local options for our children that need to be in our care.

She confirmed that the care home would be staffed by experienced residential social workers 24 hours a day and that the children would attend local schools, and sought to assure residents that there was no need for concern about antisocial behaviour. She explained that family members would meet the children at the council's Family Resource Centre, rather than at the care home, and stated that the other three children's homes operated by the council in the borough had not caused any problems for local communities. The application was approved.

Land West of Edgwarebury Farm

This application concerned land to the West of Edgwarebury Farm. The application requested a variation of Condition 4 (Levels) of an extant planning permission (appeal ref. APP/N5090/W/16/3151579, planning ref. 15/00286/FUL) for the creation of an 18-hole golf course. The changes sought were:

  • At the 6th hole, slight alterations to the shape of the green and the levels of the tees and fairway.
  • At the 7th hole, a reduction in the size of the pond and changes to the levels of the tees and green.
  • At the 8th hole, changes to the levels of the tees and the green, as well as alterations to the design and location of sandpits. The applicant also proposed to add a stream to the right side of the green.
  • At the 9th and 18th holes, changes to the levels, including a reduction in the distance of the 18th hole.

The proposed amendments were required for safety reasons. No objections were raised by consultees, and officers recommended approval of the application. The application was approved.

Roman House, 296 Golders Green Road

This was an application to extend Roman House, an existing four-storey building, which is currently used as a health and medical facility by HCA Healthcare, in conjunction with the Wellington Hospital. The proposal comprised:

  • A part four, part five-storey side and rear extension to be used as Class E(e)6 health facilities
  • A single-storey upward extension to the existing building, also to be used as Class E(e) and E(g)(i)7 floorspace
  • Revised car parking, cycle parking and access arrangements, landscaping, planting and associated works

The applicant stated that the existing health centre was a real success story and that the proposed extension would cater for the long-term needs of the Wellington Hospital, providing fit for purpose modern space. In addition, the proposed development would allow the relocation of an existing NHS GP surgery to the site, providing purpose built facilities closer to the surgery's existing patients. Mr Lewis Westhoff, agent for the applicant, stated that:

The proposal that we've prepared will really cater for the long-term needs of the Wellington Hospital on site. It'll provide some fit-for-purpose modern space, but more importantly, as officers mentioned too, it'll enable Dr. Adler to relocate on site as well and provide them with some real purpose-built facilities as well.

He confirmed that the proposed development would include a number of sustainability features, including green roofs, blue roofs8, an excellent SUD[^10] scheme, solar PV panels, new trees and planting.

Objections from neighbours related to loss of light, overdevelopment and the proximity of the development to the Decoy Brook, which lies in Flood Zone 39. Mr Daniel Austin, resident of 5 James Close, stated that the development would result in him losing probably about two hours of sunshine into my flat during the summer. He also expressed concern that the development encroached upon the Decoy Brook. He stated that:

I'm also worried that the development intrudes on the brook, which is subject to flooding, decoy brook, and there is a legal covenant whereby the developers are not allowed to develop within two to three metres of the top of the bank, not the water, the top of the bank off the brook, because our block of flats sold the land to the current developers some decades ago.

Officers responded that the proposed development was set back 5 metres from the Decoy Brook, that a daylight/sunlight report had been submitted which demonstrated that there would be negligible or very insignificant impacts on light, and that the development would include a number of SUDS features to mitigate the risk of flooding. The application was approved.

1 Daphne Close

This application sought permission for a part single, part two-storey rear extension at 1 Daphne Close. The site is part of the redeveloped Dollis Valley estate. The applicant stated that the proposed extension would harmonise nicely with the existing elevations and that it would not affect neighbour's light or views. He also explained that a tree had been felled in the rear garden after permission had been granted by the council. He stated that:

The tree was removed after getting permission from council…So I was talking about the tree which was removed, which is the main cause of comments which received the objections. Now the tree was removed after getting the permission from the council.

Objections from neighbours related to loss of privacy, overlooking and the felling of the tree. Officers responded that the proposed extension was set back 4.3 metres from the rear boundary of the nearest properties, which were on a higher level than the application site, and that the new window proposed at first floor level would not result in overlooking. They also confirmed that a condition would be attached to the permission requiring the planting of a replacement tree. The application was approved.

61 Finchley Lane

This was an application for the part-retrospective retention of a single-storey outbuilding at the rear of 61 Finchley Lane. The outbuilding had been built unlawfully and was the subject of an existing enforcement notice, which was currently under appeal. A previous application for the retention of the outbuilding had been refused by the committee in October 2023. The main change proposed by this application was to reduce the size of the outbuilding, which would be set back 2 metres from both side boundaries. The applicant confirmed that the outbuilding would be for the use of residents of the five flats at the property and would be used as a gymnasium. He stated that:

the only reasonable conclusion is for this application to be approved. The proposed development is significantly reduced in scale from the original application and is smaller than the previous refused scheme.

He explained that his client had been misinformed about permitted development rights in respect of the original outbuilding.

Neighbours objected to the application, arguing that the outbuilding was still a communal gym in a residential garden, which the applicant had been told before is uncharacteristic. Ms Jodie Benaim, speaking on behalf of residents of 59 Finchley Lane, stated that the current proposal was almost identical to the scheme that had been refused in 2023, and questioned whether any changes had been made. She argued that:

Essentially nothing [has changed]. In exhibit one, you see clearly that the proposed outbuilding has not changed in size and is merely moved away slightly from the northern boundary. The committee's recent refusal reasons of excessive footprint, size, scale, depth and height all remain.

She also alleged that the applicant had demonstrated a complete disregard for us and for the law, stating that the applicant had rented out two flats at the property as Airbnbs and that she and her family had been unable to use their garden due to noise and the smell of marijuana.

Councillor Mark Shooter, speaking as ward councillor for Hendon, stated that he did not believe that the proposed outbuilding had changed in size from the previous scheme. He argued that:

from what I can see, nothing's really changed very much from the previous application. It's still the same size, as far as I can see. The height is definitely the same, 2.45 metres. And it was refused on on height as well, I think, as well as bulking of various other issues and DMO one, etc. So, you know, what they're going to do, I mean, they can keep coming back and take an inch off here, there, everywhere. It doesn't really change the fact that this is really trying to put lipstick on an elephant but on a pig, actually.

Officers responded that there had been a big change to the size of the outbuilding, confirming that it was now 0.7 metres narrower than the previously refused scheme. Following a split vote, the Chair used her casting vote to approve the application.

811 High Road

This application requested change of use of a retail unit at 811 High Road into a restaurant and a smaller retail unit. The site is within the town centre and designated as Primary Retail Frontage. The application also included alterations to the shop front and installation of a rear extraction flue. The applicant confirmed that a dividing wall that had been erected inside the unit during construction would be removed and stated that:

the business is proposed for a healthy Periperi grilled food. There's not any oil involved in terms of the side of it, just a healthy alternative food for the high street.

Concerns were raised about the impact of the extraction flue on the residential flats above the unit, but officers responded that the council's Environmental Health team had reviewed the applicant's noise and odour management plans and deemed them acceptable, subject to conditions. Officers confirmed that the restaurant would not be classified as a hot food takeaway, as the premises would be majority providing seats for customers. The application was approved.

138 High Road

This application sought permission to convert a building at 138 High Road into three self-contained flats, including the erection of a first and second floor rear extension. The applicant stated that:

the applicant's aim is not to maximise the value of the site by cramming in as many flats as possible, but many to make this site work. A smaller number of flats, a smaller more easily lessable shop will allow this building to remain in the family into the future and will bring back to life what is at the moment essentially a dilapidated shell of a building, whilst at the same time supplying high quality accommodation and enhancing the love industry.

A previous application for the conversion of the building had been refused by the committee, and was currently under appeal. The current scheme proposed a reduction in the size of the rear extension and in the total number of potential occupants, from eight to six.

Objections were raised by neighbours at 136 High Road about loss of light and outlook. Officers responded that the first floor and second floor of the rear extension would be set back 2 metres from the side boundary, that the revised scheme had a dual aspect nature and that the kitchen in the first floor flat benefited from an acceptable level of outlook and light. The application was approved.

  1. Use Class C3 covers dwelling houses, whether or not used for a purpose ancillary to the residential use, including a single dwelling house. It also covers a small number of people living together as a single household. ↩

  2. Use Class C2 covers residential institutions, including hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres, and secure residential institutions.  ↩

  3. Use Class C3 covers dwelling houses, whether or not used for a purpose ancillary to the residential use, including a single dwelling house. It also covers a small number of people living together as a single household. ↩

  4. Use Class C2 covers residential institutions, including hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres, and secure residential institutions.  ↩

  5. The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) is a measure of how accessible a location is by public transport. A PTAL of 2 indicates fairly poor access to public transport. ↩

  6. Use Class E(e) covers clinics, health centres, creches, day nurseries, day centres, or other uses for providing health services or day care ↩

  7. Use Class E(g)(i) covers offices ↩

  8. A blue roof is a type of roof that is designed to store rainwater. The water is then released slowly over time, which helps to reduce the risk of flooding.  ↩

  9. Flood Zone 3 is an area that has a high probability of flooding from rivers and the sea.  ↩

Attendees

  • Chileme Hayes
  • Jimmy Walsh

Documents