Planning Committee - Wednesday 9th October, 2024 7.00 pm

October 9, 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
AI Generated

Summary

This meeting considered planning applications for five sites, and applications for the installation of electric vehicle charging points with advertising at three sites. The Committee approved the application to construct two new flats at Marwood Court on Gruneisen Road, and the application to construct an outbuilding in the garden of 27a Millway. The committee approved both the installation and advertising consent applications for Jolt electric vehicle charging points at 18 Hampden Square, 11-12 Onslow Parade and 468 Churchill Road. The application to demolish and rebuild the Church Hall of St Mary the Virgin on Camlet Way was deferred to a future meeting.

The Church Hall of St Mary the Virgin

The committee considered an application to demolish and rebuild the Church Hall of St Mary the Virgin. The officers had recommended refusal on the grounds that it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the Monken Hadley Conservation Area,1 that it would harm the setting of the Grade II* listed St. Mary the Virgin Church, and that the new building would be materially larger than the existing building, thus representing inappropriate development in the green belt.

Councillor Emma Whysall spoke in favour of the application. She argued that the building was already lost to the community because the cost of restoration was far higher than the cost of a rebuild, that the building currently attracted antisocial behaviour, and that the new building would be a community asset with much local support. She was asked what the cost of a restoration would be, and she said that whilst the community had raised approximately £700,000 for the project, the cost of a restoration was likely to be double that amount. She also said that she had not received any communications from her constituents in opposition to the application.

Alan Cox, the agent for the applicant, also spoke in favour of the application. He argued that, contrary to the officers report, the church had sought pre-application advice from the council before submitting the application, that the building had been deemed beyond economic repair by structural engineers who had commissioned borehole surveys to assess the foundations, and that the increase in volume of the proposed building was less than the 27% increase deemed acceptable at a recent appeal in a nearby area. He also said that English Heritage, who had visited the site, had concluded that the building lacked sufficient historic fabric to warrant listing, and that the harm caused by the loss of the building would be outweighed by the benefits offered by the new building.

Mr Cox was asked about the impact of the closure of the hall, and he said that the building had been closed since June 2023 due to its structural condition, and that as a result, a number of local groups were no longer able to use the building. He was asked about the possibility of reusing materials from the existing building, and he said that whilst they would do their best to do so, much of the existing fabric was in poor condition and would not be suitable. He also noted that a planning condition would require details of new materials to be submitted to the council for approval.

The committee voted against the officer's recommendation for refusal, but because they were minded to approve the application, they deferred it to the next meeting to allow time for the drafting of planning conditions.

Marwood Court

The Committee considered an application to construct an additional floor on top of Marwood Court, a block of flats on Gruneisen Road, to create two new flats. The application was a referral from a previous meeting because the officer report contained an error in the stated height increase. The committee had previously approved the application, and because the officer's recommendation remained unchanged, they were considering the application again in its entirety.

Mark Lester spoke in objection to the application on behalf of himself and two neighbours, Kenji and Neil. He argued that the new floor would be overbearing, that it would impact on sunlight and views and that it was out of keeping with the character of the area. He also noted that the officer report was misleading in its depiction of a tree that was no longer there. Mr Lester was asked about how long Marwood Court had been there, and he said that it had been there for at least 20 years.

Daniel Kaye then spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Mr Lester and his neighbours. He argued that the additional floor would be contrary to the Residential Design Guidance SPD, in particular the requirement for development to respect the massing and height of the surrounding context, and the requirement to safeguard residential amenity where overlooking was an issue. He said that the Planning Officer's report had failed to adequately analyse the impact of the new floor in line with the SPD, and that the officer had not visited the properties of the objectors to see the impact on their gardens. He therefore requested that the committee either refuse the application or defer it to allow for a site visit by the planning officers.

Mr Kaye was asked if the new floor would contain windows overlooking the properties of the objectors, and he said that whilst the windows would be obscured, the impact would be on the scale and massing of the building, rather than the windows. He also pointed out that the application did not include the provision of a lift, meaning that the new flats would be non-compliant with Part M of the Building Regulations,2 and that whilst there was some discretion in the regulations, they would not satisfy the Lifetime Homes3 standard.

Joe Henry, the agent for the applicant, then spoke in favour of the application. He noted that the application had been approved at the previous meeting, and that the only reason for the referral was the inaccurate measurements in the previous report. He confirmed that the drawings submitted with the application were accurate, and that the applicant had corresponded with Councillor Rich, who had called the application in, to explain that the rear windows would be obscured to prevent overlooking. He also noted that despite this, the objectors remained opposed to the additional floor. He argued that the street was of a mixed character, and that the proposed addition would improve the appearance of the building and make it more in keeping with the other properties in the street. Finally, he noted that the application would provide two additional dwellings and would thus contribute to addressing the housing crisis.

Mr Henry was asked to comment on the building regulations issue, and he said that lifts were not a building control requirement, and that planning conditions relating to lifts could only be imposed if there was a prospect that a lift could be provided. In this case, because a lift would need to be installed through other people's flats, it would not be possible to provide one.

The planning officer was asked if the additional story would be contrary to council policy, and he replied that council policy seeks to determine whether development is appropriate to the character of an area. He said that because the existing building was a three storey flat roof building, and because most other buildings in the area had pitched roofs, it could be argued that the proposed development would be an improvement. He also noted that the impact of the addition on neighbouring properties had already been caused by the vertical plane of the existing building, and that the new roof, because it would be pitched, would actually be further away from the properties of the objectors than the existing roof. The officer was asked to confirm that the drawings submitted with the application were the same as the drawings submitted with the previous application, and he confirmed that they were, and that the error was simply an officer error in scaling the plans.

The committee then voted to approve the application.

27a Millway

The Committee considered an application to construct an outbuilding in the rear garden of 27a Millway, a first floor flat. The application had been called in to committee by Councillor Simberg because it was a rear garden development and he believed that it contravened planning rules. He also believed that the size of the building would make it dominant over the main dwelling. The officers were recommending approval, subject to conditions.

Roger Titchbourne spoke in objection to the application. He said that because he had been in France he had not been able to review the officer's report and recommendations until the day before the meeting, and that he was horrified by what he saw. He pointed out that the report did not mention a mature copper beech tree in his garden, which borders the application site, and that the report was also misleading in its assertion that the site belonged to the applicant's garden. He explained that the area of the garden on which the outbuilding was to be sited had been part of the Mill Hill British Rail freight depot until 1991, and that it had only been sold to the applicant this year. He went on to say that any development on former British Rail freight depots requires a ground survey to assess contamination, and that whilst he had not objected to the application on contamination grounds before, the report's recommendation for low impact screw pile foundations would increase the risk of contamination by drilling down into the soil. He therefore requested that the council request a full ground survey before deciding on the application.

Mr Titchbourne was asked how the applicant had come to own the land, and he explained that the land had been owned by British Rail until 1991, when it was sold to a property developer called Safelands. Mr Titchbourne bought his property from Safelands, and the applicant bought the land from a neighbour who had bought it from Safelands. He noted that the applicant paid only £500 for the land, which was an indication that it was contaminated. He was then asked if he was aware of any other flats on Millway with similar outbuildings, and he said that he was not, and that whilst the officer's report referred to a number of outbuildings on Millway, none of them were of a comparable size, and none of them had toilets and showers, unlike the proposed building. He also noted that none of the outbuildings in the report had planning permission.

Dominic Deer, the agent for the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He argued that the application would resolve a number of arguments he had with his wife about his gym equipment and working from home, and that because the site did not look contaminated, he would be happy for any conditions regarding surveys to be attached to the application.

The Planning Officer was asked about the copper beech tree and the need for a survey for contamination. The officer replied that he was not aware of any issues regarding contamination because the site had been used as residential garden for many years, and that if there were any issues, they would have arisen when the neighbours were digging in their gardens. He also said that the applicant had confirmed that the proposed building would not be used as a separate flat, and that it would be used in connection with the main dwelling. He noted that if the application had been from a house, rather than a flat, the building would fall under permitted development rights4 and would not require planning permission, and that this was the reason why it was acceptable. He also said that he believed that a condition requiring a survey for contaminated land would be excessive, and that it was not proportionate or relevant to a building of that size.

The committee voted to approve the application.

Electric Vehicle Charging Points

The committee considered applications for the installation of electric vehicle charging points and advertising at three locations. All of the applications were for installations by Jolt, a provider of free electric vehicle charging, and all were for the same type of unit. The officers were recommending approval in all cases.

18 Hampden Square

The committee first considered an application for a charging point at 18 Hampden Square. Rob White of the East Barnet Residents Association had registered to speak, but he was not in attendance, and neither were any members of the public.

Patrick Thomas, planning manager for Jolt, spoke in favour of the application. He said that Jolt currently had 37 charging points in the borough, and that the application had been developed through pre-application discussions with the council. He noted that the Highways and Design teams had raised no objections, and he thanked the officers for their report. He argued that the proposal would bring a number of benefits to the area, including cleaner air and support for local businesses, and he noted that a Jolt charging point installed at Onslow Parade in April had become one of the busiest in their network, indicating that there was demand for charging points in the area. He also said that Jolt offered free advertising to independent shops on its chargers, and that it would do so in this case. He argued that the location had been carefully chosen because it was at a busy junction with wide pavements, meaning that it would blend in with the street scene.

Mr Thomas was asked about the number of Jolt installations in the Burnt Oak ward, and he said that there were no targets, but that there wouldn't be any more in the immediate area because they only had capacity for three charging points there. He also said that the demand for electric vehicle charging was in its nascence, and that the proposed unit would fill a gap in their network. He was asked about the average dwell time for charging, and he said that it was 51 minutes.

The committee voted to approve both the installation of the charging unit and its use for advertising.

11-12 Onslow Parade

The committee then considered an application for a charging point at 11-12 Onslow Parade. Again, the committee had no public speakers.

Mr Thomas said that he would not repeat his arguments about the benefits of Jolt charging points, and instead focused on the specifics of the proposal. He noted that whilst there was a Jolt charging point at Onslow Parade, the average dwell time there was 62 minutes, compared to an average of 51 minutes across the rest of the network, indicating that users were spending more time there because it was the only Jolt charging point in the area. He also said that 80% of Jolt customers shopped and spent locally while their cars were charging. He then said that the location for the new unit had been chosen in collaboration with the council's tree officer to ensure that there would be no harm to the street trees, and he confirmed that the tree officer had raised no objections.

Mr Thomas was asked about the average dwell time for charging, and he said that it was 51 minutes, and that this would typically give users about 110 miles of power.

The committee voted to approve both the installation of the charging unit and its use for advertising.

468 Churchill Road

The committee then considered an application for a charging point at 468 Churchill Road. Michael Lisvitsky had registered to speak, but was not in attendance.

Mr Thomas said that he would focus on the specifics of this proposal and avoid reiterating the general benefits of Jolt. He explained that Jolt currently had over 2,500 customers in the borough who had completed over 34,000 charges, but that Churchill Road, in the north-east of the borough, was underserved by charging points. He noted that the surrounding area was residential and that many houses relied on street parking. He said that whilst 84% of electric vehicles sold in Barnet had been to residents with driveways, the installation of public charging points would accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles by residents without off-street parking. He went on to say that the availability of public charging could also reduce the number of applications for front garden conversions for off-street parking, which would help preserve green space and the character of the borough's streets. He then said that the location had been carefully chosen in collaboration with the council's tree officer to ensure that there would be no harm to street trees.

Mr Thomas was asked about the issue of the narrow width of the pavement at the chosen location, and he said that the pinch point was very narrow, and that whilst Transport for London (TfL) guidance required a minimum two-metre width, it was guidance, rather than policy, and that it was therefore acceptable. He was asked about the average dwell time for Jolt users in the borough, and he said that it was 51 minutes, but that there was no maximum dwell time. He was also asked if there had been any other instances of Jolt applying to install chargers where there was less than the recommended two metre pavement width, and he said that there had been, and that whilst it was their preference to exceed that distance, there had been instances where it was marginal.

The committee voted to approve both the installation of the charging point and its use for advertising.

  1. Conservation areas are areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. They are designated by local planning authorities under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ↩

  2. Part M of the Building Regulations sets out the requirements for access to and use of buildings.  ↩

  3. Lifetime Homes is a set of 16 design standards intended to ensure that homes are suitable for people of all ages and abilities, and can adapt to people's changing needs as they get older. ↩

  4. Permitted development rights allow homeowners to carry out certain types of work without the need to apply for planning permission. These rights are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) ↩

Attendees

  • Chileme Hayes
  • Jimmy Walsh

Documents