At this meeting of the Barnet Planning Committee (New), eight planning applications were approved and one was refused.

Land at 49 & 51 Beresford Avenue

The Committee approved a reserved matters application for details relating to hard and soft landscaping at land at 49 and 51 Beresford Avenue. The application site is located at the top end of the Beresford Avenue cul-de-sac and has planning permission for the construction of six semi-detached dwellings.

A number of local residents objected to the application. Their concerns focused on the safety of an air shaft serving a railway tunnel that runs under the site. They were particularly concerned that the condition requiring a method statement relating to the air shaft did not need to be submitted before approval of these landscaping details. Officers explained that the wording of the condition attached to the outline planning permission was clear in that the details did not need to be provided prior to approval of the reserved matters.

Antian House, 4A Rundell Crescent

The Committee approved an application for a change of use of Antian House, 4A Rundell Crescent from a single dwelling house to a residential children's care home (C2) for up to three children.

Mr Sulman Rahman, speaking on behalf of Mr Jimmy Hakim, objected to the proposal. He said that there had been a number of incidents involving the existing residents of Antian House including drug-taking in his driveway, and the harassment of his son.

Mr Afa Asefa, the applicant, said that the placement was Ofsted regulated and that there had not been any female children or adults living at the site. He said that the incidents described by Mr Rahman could not have taken place and that there had not been any complaints of this nature made to the police.

Councillor Conway questioned the applicant about the previous use of the site as a children's care home. He established that the site had been in use for this purpose for at least a year, despite a recent application for a Lawful Development Certificate for the change of use having been refused.

The Committee discussed the relevance of potential safeguarding concerns for the determination of the application. Officers and the legal advisor explained that the application was to be considered solely on planning grounds. It was, however, acknowledged that Barnet Council would not place children in a care home that had an Ofsted rating of 'requires improvement', and that any safeguarding issues should be reported to Ofsted.

49 St James Avenue

An application for a change of use from a Class C3 dwelling house to a Class C2 children's home was approved for 49 St James Avenue.

A large number of residents objected to the application. They were concerned about the loss of a family home, the potential for anti-social behaviour and the impact of increased traffic on parking in the area. Mr Ben Cheung, a planning consultant speaking on behalf of Ms Faiza Siddiqui and Ms Zohra Siddiqui, argued that the council had not provided evidence that they had considered alternative sites with better public transport accessibility.

Ms Brigitte Jordaan, Director of Children's Social Care at Barnet Council, spoke in support of the application. She described the national shortage of foster carers and local placements for looked after children. She explained that the council had a duty of care to provide high quality accommodation for children in its care and that the council had worked hard to create local placement options to allow children to stay close to family, friends, and schools. She described the proposed children’s home as a “family home” that would provide a safe space for children to be protected and nurtured. She confirmed that the property would be staffed 24 hours a day by experienced and highly trained residential social workers and explained that, to protect the privacy and sense of normality of the children, any contact with other professionals, including therapy sessions and contact visits, would take place off-site.

Councillor Roberts asked if other children's homes run by Barnet Council had caused problems for the communities in which they are located. Ms Jordaan confirmed that they had not.

Land West of Edgwarebury Farm

The Committee approved a Section 73 application to vary condition four (Levels) attached to planning permission 15/00286/FUL for the creation of an 18-hole golf course at land west of Edgwarebury Farm.

The application was accompanied by detailed plans and ecological information and was supported by the council's ecology, tree, highways, and SUDs officers. It will require the submission of a deed of variation to update the S106 agreement.

Roman House, 296 Golders Green Road

An application for a four-storey side and rear extension, and a single storey upward extension to Roman House, 296 Golders Green Road, was approved. The existing building is currently in use as a health and medical facility, run by HCA Healthcare in conjunction with the Wellington Hospital, who have their main base in St John's Wood.

Local resident Mr Daniel Austin objected to the proposal on the grounds that the development would impact on daylight to his flat and that the development encroaches on the Decoy Brook, which is subject to flooding.

Mr Lewis Westhoff, a planning agent from Icini Projects, spoke in support of the proposal on behalf of the applicant, Mr David Rosenberg. He said that the scheme would deliver a significant number of benefits, including providing high quality, fit-for-purpose accommodation for the Wellington Hospital, accommodating a local NHS GP surgery who are in need of new premises, and delivering a number of environmental benefits, including urban greening and biodiversity net gain. He confirmed that the development would include obscure glazing to prevent overlooking of the Riverside Drive flats, and that the development had been set back five metres from the Decoy Brook and includes a sustainable urban drainage scheme to mitigate flood risk.

Councillor Kellogg asked for clarification about blue roofs. Mr Westhoff explained that a blue roof incorporates a green roof with a layer of “egg carton” type cassettes underneath to hold water and slow its release, improving the thermal performance of the building.

1 Daphne Close

An application for a part single, part two storey rear extension to 1 Daphne Close was approved.

The application had been the subject of 17 objections from local residents, many of whom were concerned about the felling of a tree in the back garden of the property and the impact of the development on the visual amenity of the area. The applicant, Mr Ankit Patel, explained that the tree had been felled with the permission of the council after one of its branches almost fell on his son.

61 Finchley Lane

The Committee approved an application for a single storey rear outbuilding at 61 Finchley Lane.

This was the sixth application for an outbuilding at this site in the last fifteen months. A previous application for a similar outbuilding had been refused by the committee and is currently at the appeal stage. The current application proposes a reduced footprint, setting the building back two metres from both side boundaries.

Mrs Jodie Benaim, a neighbour of the applicant, objected to the proposal. She described a series of planning applications and enforcement cases related to the site and complained about anti-social behaviour by the applicant, who has been using the property as short-term holiday lets. She expressed concern that the application was “lipstick on a pig”, arguing that the building remained too big and that its intended use as a gym was disingenuous.

Councillor Shooter, the ward councillor, objected to the proposal. He said that the building was an eyesore and out-of-keeping with the character of the area and questioned its proposed use as a gym, given that the flats at the property already have bathroom facilities. He said that he believed that the application was an attempt to dress up fat and to introduce planning creep.

Councillor Roberts asked if there would be any difference in the consideration of an application for a gym in a private house, as opposed to a block of flats, given that gyms are required to be of a certain size. Councillor Shooter said that he thought that this was an attempt to provide a gym for a very small number of people, when there are a number of existing gyms in Hendon that residents could use. He questioned whether a gym would even be viable for such a small number of people.

Mr Joel Gray, agent for the applicant, argued that the objections were mostly repetitive and concerned previous applications, rather than this one. He said that the new proposal had been significantly scaled down and that the proposed outbuilding was of a similar size to others on the street. He confirmed that the outbuilding would only be for the use of residents at the property.

The committee discussed the proposed use as a gym and Councillor Conway asked about the potential for it to be used as residential accommodation in the future. The legal advisor confirmed that future use of the outbuilding as a residential dwelling would be a matter for enforcement. He explained that the committee needed to make a decision based on the current application and planning considerations only.

The vote on the application was tied and the Chair used her casting vote to approve the application.

811 High Road

An application to change the use of a retail unit at 811 High Road to a restaurant and smaller retail unit, with a new shop front and extraction flue, was approved.

The applicant, Mr Arul Nesam, explained that the proposal included a number of measures to mitigate the impact of the extraction flue, including noise and odour management systems and the installation of a silencer. He said that the proposed restaurant would provide healthy food and create new jobs for local people.

A number of local residents had objected to the application. They were concerned about the over-concentration of fast food outlets in the area, and the potential impact on health, parking, traffic, litter and air pollution.

The committee discussed the concerns about hot food takeaways. The officer clarified that the proposal was for a restaurant and not a hot food takeaway and that the committee could only consider the application on the basis of its proposed use class. They also clarified that, whilst the application stated that there would be no seating arrangements, the application was only intended to prevent the provision of seating outside the restaurant.

138 High Road

The Committee approved an application for a change of use of 138 High Road from a restaurant to three self-contained flats. The application also includes plans for a first and second floor rear extension, new refuse, recycling, and cycle storage facilities, and the removal of a cold room at the rear of the property.

The application had been called in to the committee by Councillor Arjun Mittra, who argued that the proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site, would harm the character and appearance of the area, and would fail to mitigate the impact on parking.

A previous application for the site had been refused by the committee and is currently at the appeal stage. The current application includes a two metre setback for the first and second floor extensions, and a reduction in the total number of potential occupiers from eight to six.

Mr Chris Hill, the agent for the applicant, Mr Tony Forgione, spoke in support of the application. He explained that the design was intended to harmonise with existing extensions to neighbouring properties and that a daylight and sunlight assessment had been carried out to ensure that there would be no undue impact on neighbouring properties. He said that the applicant would be happy to agree to an S106 agreement to restrict the future occupiers of the development from using parking spaces in the controlled residents parking zone. He explained that the applicant’s family had owned the building since the 1960s and had found it difficult to let.

Councillor Farrier, the ward councillor, said that the revised application was an improvement, but that she was still concerned about the overdevelopment of the rear of the site.