Transcript

Transcript

Good evening everyone. It's seven o'clock, so shall we kick off and welcome to the Strategic Planning Committee on the 14th of October. I'm Councillor Nigel Young and I chair the Strategic Planning Committee and thank you for attending this evening. I will ask members of the committee first to introduce themselves, followed by the planning officers, legal officers and governance. Shall we start with Councillor Gordon tonight? I'm Councillor Shree Gordon, Edgware Ward. I'm Richard Cornelius, Totridge and Woodside Ward. I'm Councillor Narges Narathira, Councillor of Scollindale South Ward. I'm Councillor Rishikesh Chakraborty representing West Hendon Ward. Councillor Richard Barnes representing Barnet Vale Ward. Thank you very much. I'll ask that everyone remain seated throughout the meeting, unless you are called to the table to address the committee. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in law or by the Council. By attending either in person or online you may be picked up on recordings. Council recordings are covered by our privacy notice which can be found at barnet.gov.uk. For each application, although there's only one application tonight, the planning officer will present the application. Each speaker will have three minutes to address the committee. The governance officer will inform you when there is one minute left. The committee will have the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers. Following discussion, the committee will determine the application and the chair will announce the committee decision. When you are called to speak, and obviously members of the committee who I think know this, please press the middle speaker icon to turn on the mic and ensure that after you finish speaking you press the microphone off to ensure there is no feedback. So if I move to the agenda for the meeting, first item is the minutes of the last meeting. Are we happy that I agree these minutes, held on the 16th of September? Apologies for absence. Being notified of one, Apology Councillor Eva Greenspan and we wish her well this evening. Declarations of members, other interests? I haven't been notified of any. Dispensations granted by the monitoring officer, I'm not aware of any. There is an addendum to the report, are we happy to accept the addendum? That's agreed. So if we move to the first substantive item which is INTEC House 49 Moxon Street and the planning officer is going to take us through this application. Thank you. A little bit of very quick context. The committee may recall that in July it heard an application on the site relating to a non-determination appeal. During those discussions we had informed the committee that we were discussing alternative options with the applicant in the background and in order to make the scheme deliver on site affordable units. This application is the result of those discussions and I will talk you through some of those discussions and what has come out of that. I know the committee are familiar with the site and the context. So we have the site in red, a mostly vacant industrial unit at the bottom of Moxon Street. Just some aerial views in red surrounded by a residential and employment at the bottom. Again some views, the site is where the red star is at the very bottom. And just some quick site images. It's an existing two three storey office, employment commercial building. Propose block plan. So during the discussions here we looked at a number of different options with the third scheme. So we have the consensus scheme down the left hand side here which was for 92 units which delivered 35% on site affordable housing. Then a part of the appeal scheme had an increase of 98 units but had no on site affordable. And so exploring options with the applicant we looked at a number of different options which included reducing the employment floor space. We looked at reconfiguring the existing layout, the existing massing. And we have also explored where additional massing could be accommodated within the building to help deliver more on site affordable. So that is the combination of those three elements that has resulted in the current scheme. So just summarising that, there's now an increase of units on site, 113. There's an additional storey and no taller overall. And what that has allowed us to achieve is the provision of 17 on site social rented units. So that equates to 15% affordable housing provision by habitable room and by unit. As I just explained, the result of that then means there's a reduced commercial floor space, so about half of that. The car parking remains the same. And then the subsequent play space, external and shared amenity has increased in line with that. There's also another comparison in comparing the affordable housing offers. So on the left hand side again was the consent scheme, so that comprised of 29 units in a 60/40 split. So that was 16 affordable rented units, 13 intermediate. The appeal scheme obviously had nothing and what we secured within the latest scheme is 17 social rented units. So I'm just flagging that up. So as I talked about, there are a number of different options which this current scheme is different from the previous one. So we talked about increased massings. We have identified three corners of the building where the building could accommodate increased massing. They are particularly along the two corners on the northern elevation and then the rear of the east elevation and I'll show you those now and the changes before and after. So in terms of the internal reconfiguration, as I said, we have reduced the level of employment space on site and reconfigured that. So we have been able to rejig the upper ground floor level, so we've got additional units at the front and to the side. And then on the upper floor levels, this is the mezzanine, so again, mostly internal configuration at this level, reducing the level of employment. Then at the third and fourth floor levels, then there's additional mass in this particular corner over two levels, as you can see by the orange. And then an additional story or additional mass in the very back of the site, as you can kind of see here. So elevation-wise, so how that looks, consent of the scheme is on the left-hand side, so here you can kind of see the additional mass in this particular corner and also then you can kind of see it protruding at the very back, so in here. How that looks on the rear elevation, so again, you can kind of see the green element has been extended along the top. And then from the south side, so again, what you'll see mostly on this side is just the extension to the top. And then the northern elevation from south close, you see it from this corner here, it's been infilled at two storeys and then the uppermost floor is here. So this is the element that, as I say, now constitutes the tall building element because you get eight storeys then at the very back of the site down this bit. So just again, I mean, you've essentially seen these, but these are just typical floor plans of the units spread out and then the communal floor space has been moved to the roof, so there's still some first floor level and then largely on the roof. Separation distances to the neighbourhood route is largely unchanged. I mean, this is a previous, I don't have an updated one, but as you can kind of see, what the latest scheme just infills, this area here and this area here, and so the distances between the buildings remain unchanged. Just to remind the committee of the tree position, as we discussed before, there are a number of trees to be removed along here, so there's a couple here and a couple beside the pumping station where the large majority of the trees are to be retained, protected. And just quickly summarising then the different viewpoint assessments, so this is kind of pathway up Moxon Street and you can't quite at this point, you kind of see there's the red of the existing and then there's an additional yellow line of the additional matching, you'll see it come more into play, but so you can kind of see it would slowly start to be visible at the very upper levels only, as you come closer to the site, and in this view mostly behind the trees, again a small element up here, from Snowbury Close, again you will largely see the additional matching from the rear, up on this corner, and from the London Loop, still largely un-visible, sitting behind here, and then from South Close, again the existing consented scheme in red, and then where the infill bit will be going in here, and then the additional top story would become much more visible here. So just to summarise, the key changes from the previous applications, again so there's no additional matching and reconfiguration to help deliver on-site affordable units, and this results in increased massing at the upper levels, reduced employment, a tall building element at the rear, and it's a largely secure 17th on-site affordable, which we have secured as 15% social rent. Needing on from obviously the committee's decision from July that there was obviously a level of harm from the cumulative scale of density, obviously from the increased massing, we recognise then it will have further harm than what you acknowledged or decided before, so both in terms of the scale and density, and also on the neighbour and amenity in terms of the daylight/sunlight. However, in the planning balance, officers have obviously kind of weighed up the benefits against the harms, and we consider that sniffing of weight should be given to the on-site affordable, which overall then concludes the scheme to be acceptable from an officer's recommendation. So the recommendation is for approval subject to the section 106 and conditions set out in the report. Just briefly in the addendum, so the addendum just updates a few matters, so one is just confirming or clarifying, A, on the affordable housing that it's social rent we're securing, and then we provide extra clarity on the loss of tree provisions, we have further stipulated that priority of the loss of trees or replanting should be in that area between South Close and the application site where those trees are proposed to be removed, and there are a couple of amendments to a couple of the conditions which just talk about an updated ecological report, so hopefully that explains the addendum, so nothing further to add. Thank you for that. We have three speakers on this item, two objectors and then someone speaking on behalf of the applicant. So if I could ask Darren Taylor down here if you could come to the middle desk. I think we all received your email earlier, and thank you for the paper copy. So you've got the middle icon with the sort of speaker, when you're ready start, maybe wait for Governor's Office to sit down and we'll give you three minutes and then we'll give you a one-minute warning when you've got one minute left. When you're ready just start. Evening. I represent a committee of 65 neighbours joined in objections to this enlarged application. At the last Strategic Planning Committee meeting the members rejected in principle the concurrent application over concerns including cumulative scale, density and impact on the neighbouring buildings, proximity to the Greenbelt, the Monk and Hadley conservation area and a lack of information relating to affordable housing. This application has not addressed any of those issues raised and further increased the height, massing and density, its impact on the Greenbelt and is even more ambiguous when it comes to the affordable homes element. The eighth floor has been greatly expanded and roof terrace and playground moved to essentially a ninth floor. I would also like to draw your attention to the A4 informative provided to members highlighting just some of the failings to meet the required legislation, policy, targets and guidelines, as well as the key visual impacts that have been deliberately excluded from the heritage, townscape and visual impact assessments in each application so far. The Barnet Residents Association have said, We have been scrutinising planning applications in the High Barnet area for more than 15 years and consider this to be one of the most ill-conceived that we have ever seen. A development of this scale should not even be entertained. Barnet Policy CS5 identifies tall buildings are not permitted on this site. Barnet Policy DM05 states that tall buildings outside of strategic locations will not be considered acceptable. Even Barnet Emerging Policy will acknowledge this location for tall building development. Why are these policies made if they can continually be ignored in favour of developer greed? The developer and planning officer finally agreed that this is a P-Towel 3 site but are still pushing a development density akin to Zone 2 in London, not a suburban leafy suburb of High Barnet. The London Plan states that the density of a P-Towel 3 site should be between 150 and 450 habitable rooms per hectare, depending on your definition of 'urban' and 'suburban'. This design density is between 3-fold and 10-fold the density designated for this location. We have two neighbours who work in property lending, development and valuation who have identified over 20 problems with the contradictory documents. The developers' viability assessment concludes the scheme cannot viably support the delivery of any affordable housing, whilst also saying it will be agreed during the determination phase. The Planning Statement says 'affordable homes percentage to be confirmed' but also 'allow for the provision of on-site affordable housing in principle'. It's unclear where the figure of 15% affordable homes has even come from, it's first mentioned within the officer's report. This application remains too ambiguous. We request a truly independent, expert review of the viability assessment to ensure objectivity and accuracy. If the developer cannot financially make the scheme work with or without the affordable homes element, they should either downsize the scheme or sell to a developer that can make it work. As we've said all along, a five-storey development would be agreeable by both the community and surroundings. Eight to nine storeys is nothing but absurd. Thank you. Thank you very much. If you press the button off and then if someone asks you a question you'll have to put it back on again I'm afraid. Has anyone got any questions that they'd like to ask? Councillor Barnes. Good evening. Can you tell me where you live and how you're personally going to be impacted? I know you're representing lots of people but just to give you a bit of personal background. Hi, I live at the bottom of South Close, number 21. With the lights and daylight assessments, we're probably going to be the most affected because the independent reports and our independent reports suggest that we're going to lose up to 65% of the light that we currently receive and we're going to be put into shadow for possibly six to seven months of the year. We're directly opposite where the trees are all being removed, so some of the tree screening is being kept but what we've also done, some of the documents show tree coverage, some of the documents say they're being removed. Again that's quite ambiguous, there is now in the officer's report saying that some of the trees might be planted, we've seen on the addendum just now that some trees will potentially be replanted along there, but opposite our house they're all being taken away and we're going to see eight storeys and there's going to be eight storeys of balconies looking directly into our property and into our bathrooms with no tree coverage and that tree coverage has been there for at least 70 years. So yeah we're at the bottom, me and Andy both live on South Close, on the lower part of South Close, we're greatly affected but we do represent the neighbourhood and it's about 65 other households. Councillor Cohen. Yeah I just wasn't quite sure what you're saying about affordable, this scheme would provide a certain number of social housing units which will amount to 15% of the total. Do you accept that and would that be, you accept that that would be a benefit to a community that would not be realised by the previous iteration of the scheme? Yeah we're for the affordable homes, we were against the very first application but we obviously failed in stopping that one, but that was an agreement that 35% affordable homes would be included and we completely disagree that the developer couldn't afford that or couldn't fulfil that obligation. 15% I think is a bit of a joke from the developer, I agree it's still better than the last application but I think the developers playing games quite clearly 15% is nowhere near the 50% that's supposed to be there or the 35% that previously agreed they're playing a game and I really hope that they don't just get to profiteer and one other point as well, the 15% affordable homes has not been in any of the documents in the application, it's only been in the officer's report, so looking through there's no indication, as I said the planning statement has contradictory points in there, not saying anything to do with 17 units or 15%, the financial viability assessment also doesn't have anything about 15 units or 17 units or 15%, the first we've seen that they will be aiming for 15% is in the planning officer's report because that's not indicated in any of the documents in the application. But it's now been offered by the developer, it's now been agreed with them if we were to go ahead. I accept that they will probably fall back on that in the future and they will probably come back and say they can't afford it. In the documents it does say that it will go through a process of review during the development and we can just foresee that they will probably say they can't afford it and nothing will get included and they will do a token insulting gesture of £30,000, £60,000, it's not even the cost of a quarter of a one-bed flat towards the community, so I don't agree with their assessments and we would prefer that a truly independent financial assessment is implemented because the last application, the documents were so unclear, with this application they're probably even more unclear, it's very difficult to actually decipher what's going on and clearly the planning office having discussions behind the scenes and putting that into the planning officer's report but that's not available to the general public, so the first we knew of the 15% is in the planning officer's report last week. Okay well we can follow those up with the developer and with the planning officer. You mentioned that potentially a five-storey development would be acceptable, I mean one of the things that is very apparent when you visit the site is the difference in level. Are you thinking five-storey sort of opposite your house but as it goes down the slope that quickly becomes two additional storeys, so if you could just clarify what you were saying then that would be really helpful. The existing building is a three-storey building but it's staggered over one storey, so opposite our house there's three storeys, slightly up the hill it's still three storeys, there is a step in the building and I think as a general consensus we would probably be happy with the five-storey building again if it was stepped up the slope it would still generally be hidden behind the trees, it would still poke a bit out the top of the trees but approximately four storeys would be hidden by the existing trees and what we do find difficult is a lot of the documents when they say it's going to be well hidden within the trees then there's other documents saying you'll have far reaching views over the green belt and you can't have both. It will be as you can see from the handout there's a view from King George Fields that we've mocked up that is fairly accurate using our sort of measuring methods but that view has been deliberately withheld from the townscape and the heritage which would be one of the most useful ones as well as the bottom of South Place which is where the most impact is going to be on the residential areas. So again that image has also been withheld from, well just not included in the townscape and the heritage assessments, impact assessments but that's been since the very first application we've highlighted it quite a few times that it would be really useful that the public can see exactly what impact this building is going to be doing and when we've sent this through to our neighbours and our community group and the wider neighbours everyone is generally shocked at the size and the impact which doesn't come across in the documents that are available on the application. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Okay thank you very much. We've got also Andy Shamash, yeah great. Same routine, you press the middle icon button and you'll have three minutes for my new start. Thank you and you'll get a one minute warning. Members as acknowledged in the officer's report this proposed scheme would result in significant harm to the surrounding neighbourhood including my family at 19A South Close. This harm mainly comes in the form of an unacceptable level of overlooking into our property as well as several others at the bottom of South Close. Units on the higher floors will be able to look directly into our bedrooms even with the existing tree screen and this already significant harm is made much worse by the proposed removal of several trees which currently play a vital role as a visual screen between South Close and the scheme without any certainty as to what level of replanting will take place. Additionally, as acknowledged in the report, the scheme has a significant impact on our levels of natural light. As has been pointed out by the Barnet Residence Association, the original consent of the 92 unit scheme was considerably flawed, informed by an incorrect retail rating, its height and massing are greatly out of character to the surrounding area. It did however at least make a contribution to the borough in its provision of 35% affordable housing. The developer's viability assessment, which has not been independently reviewed, contends that even with a reduced 15% affordable provision, the scheme falls short of viability. Although as a property finance professional myself, I noted the generous allowances within the figures of over 10 million developer profit and 2.5 million contingency. And if we are to believe this assessment, if the scheme is not viable even with the more than halved affordable provision, how is the developer going to be able to deliver it? The members should be aware of the well-publicised previous failures of this developer, notably in respect of the Parklet Place scheme in Kilburn, which collapsed with 26 million of debt in a more favourable economic environment. And is it not likely, or even obvious given their previous application, that if consent for this scheme is obtained, the developers will again plead poverty and look to submit a further scheme backed by yet another viability assessment, reducing the affordable provision again and maximising their profits at the expense of Barnet residents. My neighbours and I are not anti-development, but the solution to the apparent deliverability issue of the approved scheme is not to load more and more units onto an already overdeveloped scheme. There is potential on this site for a scheme, especially when considered with the neighbouring site of Fortune House, also owned by this developer. Our suggestion to the applicant is to look again at the whole site, preferably with meaningful local consultation, in order to produce a scheme which delivers valuable housing, minimising unnecessary harm to the local area. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have members of the committee got any questions? Just going back to your last comment, I'm just wondering what you mean by the developer putting forward an alternative scheme. I mean, this is their latest alternative of what they say is affordable from their point of view. So you think they could put forward something that's much more acceptable? We – the developer's also sort of – a separate scheme, Fortune House, that has received a sort of resolution to grant for 41 units, I believe, adjacent to this development. So our suggestion is that, you know, sort of, I guess, sympathetic to their viability concerns, but the solution is not to just increase massing, increase harm to the local environment. You know, look again at the whole scheme together with, you know, the adjacent site, sort of come up with a scheme, you know, in consultation with local residents that, you know, doesn't have the benefits but without the sort of significant harm that this scheme does. So you think that this scheme is making up for just having a smaller Fortune House next door, which presumably would have more impact on Snowbury Court next door to that? I mean, I think when you compare this with the existing consented scheme, what you've got is increased harm to the local area by the sort of increased massing, overlooking, loss of natural light, trees, et cetera. You think that's because the other one is smaller, because it's making up for – You know, what we're sort of saying is that when you're comparing it to the existing consented scheme, increased harm, less benefit, that's the sort of essential equation, isn't it? There's sort of, you know, if the original scheme was sort of – it's been acknowledged that that does cause harm to the local environment, and, you know, members judged with the 92 state scheme that the provision of 35% affordable, you know, on balance outweighed that harm. You know, what's happening with this application is there's increased harm and less sort of affordable benefit. To a large extent, we're looking at this compared to the first approved scheme, which is still, instead of being approved, whether or not they're able financially to build it or not. So to some extent, or to a large extent, we're looking at the increased harm that this will do over the first one, which, again, was very large and had an impact on you. So is the extra harm that this will do excessive? You know, how do you quantify the extra harm that this scheme will do? You know, what our sort of argument would be, the initial decision could be argued to have been a flawed decision. It was one of the sort of important points that we made. At the time, the site was considered a P-TEL 4, which I think was a big part of informing the original consent, and I think it's now acknowledged that that was not a correct designation. And also take that into account, you know, sort of amendments to an originally flawed scheme, you know, should be sort of seen in that light. But yes, our case sort of absolutely is that there is a significantly increased level of harm with this scheme in terms of views, in terms of our natural light, and clearly there's less benefit to the borough in the form of 15% affordable housing, which is significantly less than the original scheme. You mentioned the impact to your property on daylight and sunlight. I mean, the assessment I've looked at suggests that obviously there is a reduction, but that reduction largely speaking falls within guidelines of the BRE set. Are you familiar with that assessment, or are you sort of disagreeing with that assessment? I just kind of want to know. It's difficult to disagree with a professional assessment. Certainly, you know, perhaps my property is one of the bungalows on South Close, sort of acknowledge that my property is one of the least affected, but you know, it certainly was pointed out in the officer's report that some of the loss of natural light was, you know, sort of not within guidelines, and it seems to be that that's, you know, it always seems to be judged on the basis of on balance, but I think it's even sort of acknowledged in the officer's report, there is a significant issue on our properties, probably Darren's more than mine. Sure, yes, and that's mentioned in the officer's report, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. Is there any further questions for anyone? Thank you very much. Oh, I beg your pardon, Councillor Cornelius. Just one, if I may. Do you feel that, aesthetically, if one ignores all the sort of surveyor talk, et cetera, do you feel that the infill on the top floor actually has a bigger impact aesthetically than it may do physically, in that it becomes so much more slab-like? I sort of always come back to, and I know you're sort of comparing it with the existing consented scheme, but I know there was a site visit the other day, it's always amazing to me that an eight-storey scheme was sort of consented in the first place when you consider the surrounding area. I think it is out of character, and I think it is sort of inappropriate when you look at the general area of the neighbourhood, it certainly seems that first time round, with the 92-unit scheme, they got more than they could reasonably have expected, and it's therefore very difficult now to see them just trying to build on that great result that they got before, and sort of loading more and more units onto the scheme, I don't think it's something that should be accepted. But yes, I think your point is a valid one, that what we get with the aesthetic of the new scheme is that sort of slab-like effect, perhaps less than the slightly more graduated view of the consented scheme. Thank you very much. We're very pleased to present the scheme to you this evening. That reflects months of design work and consultation with your officers, as well as being better designed to meet local housing needs. The proposal delivers a high-quality development that balances community benefits with robust design. Members will be aware that there's next-stand permission on the site, the first application it's often referred to, that is no longer viable due to dramatic changes to the housing market. Very similar scheme was then brought forward earlier this year, which was refused, with the biggest concern amongst members being the level of affordable housing on site. We've listened carefully to that feedback. We have explored every avenue to make the scheme viable for on-site affordable housing, the result of which you see before you this evening, which delivers 15% affordable housing, all of which will be socially-rented homes. To provide this increase, we've increased the number of units on the site, but this is achieved by seeking to infill appropriate elements of the building. It is no higher than the originally approved scheme. The SATE scheme is also no closer to existing dwellings than the originally approved scheme, and your officers report SATE that they find the plans acceptable in townscape terms. It's also, and I really want to emphasise this point, because we've now got a scheme that is 100% socially-rented rather than 60% socially-rented on the first scheme, we now have one more social home than the approved scheme, so 17 socially-rented homes rather than 16. So the building will step down in height towards Moxon Street, with the largest part of the building being at the bottom of the site, ensuring it integrates smoothly with the surrounding townscape. To minimise the visual impact, china trees and landscaping will enhance the site. In line with sustainability objectives, the scheme will include solar panels, air source heat pumps and measures to achieve biodiversity net gain, well in excess of the 77-year-old city. A thorough transport assessment has been conducted, demonstrating a net decrease in vehicular transport compared to the current use. We have listened to concerns on daylight/sunlight through thorough, detailed testing of the surrounding units. In summary, this is a scheme of high quality and thoughtful design, and offering significant public benefits. It represents the regeneration of a brownfield site, providing much-needed housing, including on-site socially-rented homes and employment space in a sustainable, community-focused manner. By incorporating 17 socially-rented homes, Intech House is helping to deliver more homes with the greatest housing need. We are pleased the application is recommended for approval by our officers, and we hope you agree with this carefully considered development, and it can be agreed this evening. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, thank you very much. I have got Councillor Cornelius, Councillor Barnes and Councillor Farrier. Don't worry, I will come back for another round if there are. Councillor Cornelius. Thank you very much. Please excuse me if it is in the report, and I have missed this. The socially-rented housing that is going to be on this site, should the application go ahead, could you go into that in a little more detail, please? What do you mean by a social rent? Will that be the same as a Barnet Homes rent? Who are you thinking will manage the socially-rented property, and who will have the nomination rights to that property, please? So it will be a socially-rented home and market rent set in line with what is agreed with in the legal agreement, which is set by Barnet Council. I will look to your officer here, and I believe it is 60% of market rent, I believe that to be correct, you may want to just come back on that one, but it is not affordable rent, London Living rent, it is socially rent as defined by Barnet Council. One site provision will be transferred across to a housing association, that will be part of the section 106 agreement for that to be delivered, and then nomination rights will be for Barnet Council to determine who is in the greatest need on your housing register to occupy those units. Councillor Barnes. Thank you, there was some suggestion of linkage with the adjoining site, would you like to comment on that? Yeah, look I can completely understand why people are kind of linking the two, they are obviously two separate applications, and there are very good reasons for that, number one there is a different ownership structure on Fortune House in which the landowner is part of the development arm there, and this applicant is project managing the scheme, whereas on this site they purely own the site, and because there is an existing occupier with a longer lease, these two schemes will be brought forward in very different timescales. This one we want to get cracking on with straight away, hence why we are here with application number three, Fortune House will just take a little bit longer, and there is no connection here in terms of viability of the two, the level of development that has been set on the site is based on the individual assessments of each site and what we think can be safely contained in terms of capacity, in terms of townscape terms and design, and so there is no connection there at all in terms of viability or cross subsidy or anything like that. Yes, I want to address one of the first things you say, that this is better designed to meet local housing needs, and it is no higher than the approved scheme, now we have heard that one particular corner, although it may seem overall not higher, there is an infill, the top step back floor is coming forward so it will be higher, and better designed, I think it is not better designed, so I wondered if you could expand on your design comments. So I will just deal with a second point first, apologies if I wasn't clear, what I meant to say, if I didn't say it was better designed to meet local housing needs, i.e. previous scheme didn't have any affordable housing on site, this one delivers the affordable housing on site in terms of those 17 socially rented homes, so it is better designed to meet those local housing needs, apologies if that wasn't clear. Very fair challenge in terms of that height point, I suspect it is probably when you have only got three minutes to expand on all of the details there, so you have got that top story at the moment on the approved scheme and we have filled in around it, so it is no higher than that existing highest point, perhaps that would be the most accurate representation of the point I am trying to make there. Yes look, and I think to be fair your officer did highlight that there will be more visibility of the scheme within the street scene and it is of course unavoidable when you are delivering more units and increasing the density, you can't hide those units away, they will appear from certain locations, particularly when you are very close to them, you will see more of the building, but in terms of from a townscape perspective, when you are further step back, which is the purpose of the policy on tall buildings, is that it won't have a significant impact in terms of those views, it is only we are going to see it closer up on South Place. Thank you, what do you say to the residents' points about the loss of daylight and sunlight for certain properties on South Close, what is your, because obviously they are concerned about that, and that is a harm to them, what would you be doing about that? Yes and look, it is completely understandable in terms of daylight and sunlight impact that residents would be objection and raising concerns on that and we completely understand that. The point here is that there is, we are broadly within the guidelines in terms of what BRE sets for guidelines, it is not a requirement that you meet that and quite often there are schemes that exceed or fall below those guidelines, in this instance we are pretty much there on all of the existing dwellings, there is the one property in terms of 21 South Close that does have more of a significant impact and we are not trying to hide away from that. Why it probably looks a little bit worse than it does in terms of the figures is that one of the units, the ones that is most affected is the living room which is very long and thin, so it relies on daylight at the front of the room in terms of the building, and that bedroom as I understand it also has quite a big overhang as well so the area that it takes its light from is like that basically, so even a slight increase in height compared to what is there already has quite a significant impact on the numbers, so it is a case of if you do want to develop this site for any kind of increase in height on that site, inevitably there will be a significant impact on that one specific room because of its layout and the way that it is, and that is obviously something that you as members will have to balance in terms of the level of harm, both myself and the officer have come to the conclusion that that harm benefit should be in favour of a proven scheme, obviously you will have to make your own decision. How would you react if it was your bedroom? How would I react? That is a good question isn't it? Look I regularly write and support planning applications in my neighbourhood, I can understand why people would be disappointed with what is happening in that specific site, but at the end of the day as planning officers and planning committees you have to take everything in the round don't you, and something has got to happen on that site, something has to happen with it, it can't stay as it is, and as I said it is inevitable that there will be some impact on 21 South Close if this site is to be delivered. Are there any other questions? I've got a few questions. I mean on that issue, part of Councillor Cohen's question I think was that you are right having reviewed the daylight and sunlight analysis and what is in the officer report, there are some impacts around a number of the properties but the biggest impact is on that room in number 21 which I think the distribution in the consented scheme is something like 0.76 distribution of light and that drops down to 0.51 in the new scheme, or the scheme we are considering now I should say. I mean I think part of his question was is there anything that as a developer you can do to help that situation in terms of the resident there? I don't think there is if you want to deliver the amount of socially rented housing that we are looking to deliver here. The units on the upper floor are one of the few places that we think is sensible and appropriate to deliver the additional housing that enables this level of affordable housing that we are coming with you today. As I say, I don't think there is anything that can be done on that point. It is just an unfortunate quirk of the layout of that building and the way in which the windows interact with the scheme. Okay, thank you. So you talked a bit about the viability and it has been mentioned by a couple of the residents as well. In terms of the viability assessment, it looks like we obviously as you know that was one of the reasons that we refused this scheme last time as we were concerned about the viability effectively. So I am paraphrasing but effectively concerned about that. You have currently got a situation where your residual land value is about minus 3 million. But I did note that in that viability assessment you are looking at a 20% profit which is around about £10 million. So I suppose I am putting those two things together but I am interested to know how you are addressing the current deficit in the viability assessment. Is your question essentially how would the scheme deliver for what it takes to make the development? Exactly, yes. Sorry, could you put your microphone on? Sorry, apologies. As I say, it is a fair point. These are very challenging times for the development sector given the construction costs and the house prices decrease as we have seen in recent years and there are a lot of hard decisions that need to be made by developers. In this instance it is a case of the developer has to take a hit in terms of what their return is on the site compared to what they originally envisioned for the site. As a small and medium sized developer they need these schemes to be coming out of the ground and to be delivering them in order to fund further schemes. We are not talking about Barra or Avistra or Bellway or anything like that. They need these schemes to be coming out of the ground and therefore that is why these difficult decisions around deliverability are being made. Sort of to pick up on that point, how long have you been trying to develop this site for? Your client took over the ownership of this land and I would be interested to know how long it has been like it is. This was nothing to do with my client or ourselves but there was originally a permitted development rights application on this site for an Office to Resi conversion which was refused and I think that may have been by the original owner and the point at which that kind of reached a dead end is when they started to sell it. So I think our involvement, the application was, I think it was September 2022 was submitted so I think we had about nine months. I suspect the start of January 2022 was when we started on it if my memory is correct and obviously that was a very different time in terms of interest rates and construction costs and pre-inflation and the budget and I guess the one thing that I would highlight here in terms of what changed since that first application is that a couple of months after the application was submitted we had the budget that led to the very high increases in terms of interest rates and so we had a very different scenario by the time the application was finally approved in terms of the viability of the scheme. It has certainly been around two to three years plus in terms of the project. So one of the things that the Planning Officer mentioned in the report was around looking at options around the employment space and obviously you have decided to keep some employment space which I think obviously that is a positive thing. I mean how viable do you feel that employment space is in that location? Is that something that you are feeling that you will be able to sell or rent or whatever and make a good viable place for employment uses? Yeah I guess the one thing I would say is that to start off with is that development doesn't, viability and success doesn't rise and fall on the employment space within it. It's always been designed in mind with the fact that this isn't the place where you're going to get a big employer coming in. It's designed as small units that are almost kind of incubators for those start-ups that need some floor space and don't want to take you on the high street or can't afford somewhere particularly expensive. And in terms of the reason why the level it's set at is where it is is basically you could not convert that floor space into residential use. It wouldn't be suitable for that purpose. So it serves two purposes. One is it makes very good use of the floor space and helps with your kind of place making of the scheme. It gives you a very nice kind of entrance and sort of an active frontage in that location. And also you get a mixture of uses there as well so you can help support some local small businesses hopefully. Thank you. Has anyone got any further follow up questions? Okay thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Okay we now move to the part of the meeting where members of the committee can ask questions of the officers and make comments and discuss the application before we then move to a vote on the application. Has anyone got any comments or questions they would like to make? Councillor Barnes. Right I've got a few of the issues that were brought up previously. Hopefully maybe somebody else will ask some questions. So part of the development is now going to be eight storeys and that comes into the realm of being classified as a tall building and it's been suggested that this is not a location that should be having a tall building. Right but the policy is that you still have to assess it against the relevant criteria. So whilst it doesn't necessarily mean it's not appropriate there are circumstances which may allow for it to be appropriate or where the balancing exercise may find it appropriate. So in this particular instance we looked at different areas of the scheme which could accommodate additional massing and we felt that whilst the additional bit at the very back could accommodate it and become a tall building but it's no taller overall. So whilst it infills the tallest element still is the tallest element it's no taller than that and it's only because of the topography of the land that it becomes, that it's eight storeys and a tall building. So I mean the policy kind of sets out those particular locations from a townscape point of view where it is where we deem it more appropriate but doesn't say that it can't be considered altogether. I think that's the way we've carried out this exercise. Okay I think I get that. Can I ask about the trees as well? Specifically how many trees are being removed and I think it was suggested there might be replacements possible by some mechanism. So the tree position is exactly the same as each of the previous applications. There are two trees within that. So there's a large sort of more dense group of trees on the corner and then as you go down they become a little more scattered and a little bit more open. So there's a couple of trees from here and then around Popping Station in here. So that hasn't changed and it's very explicitly set out in the plans and in the report. So is that a total of four trees? Yeah and so the rest of them I said then this is the tree protection plan. So there are obviously kind of four street trees which we are covering the value for their loss and previously we have just kind of said and I think the consent scheme just says the money shall be spent by the green spaces team. So what we have tried to ensure and to beef up that provision and some of the comments that have been raised by the residents is and we have kind of indicative and spoken to the green spaces team is that can we can we use some of that money and specifically say and target it along this area as a priority first so they can use as much of that money to plant as much as they can in that area and that's what that's kind of we've expanded them with the in the addendum so in the event that permission is granted then green spaces are very clear how that money is to be spent and where it's to be spent and this is a we've been thinking I've been particularly spoken to the green spaces team here said to in principle they are happy to look at that. Now we can secure replanting or where the site and how many trees were that within this application because outside of the redline site so our green spaces team can only start looking at that is once permission is granted and the money is is secured so hopefully that kind of makes sense but sorry just on that point it wasn't us with the replanting address would that help in some way you see them would it disguise some of the massing was it the massing or the daylight sunlight day so the help of the screening it will by no means I think we're admitting that it will by no means screen or covered entirely and but some of the concerns raised ours that it will become it it will be a bit more visible than with a bit more visible without it so some so if we can get some replanting back in then at least that is some form of mitigation of the mass of the massing yeah what about the doesn't affect the daylight sunlight issue no of the houses I just want to check that right but that you can't guarantee I can't guarantee but we were obviously getting the money the money is guaranteed so the limits of that and and then but it's obviously kind of I can't tell you where exactly until green spaces go down and survey the land they kind of say well look we could get X number of trees here or X type of hedging here or this is how much money we could spend that's the that's the position I just can't the best case how much of the massing would it disguise or cover I can't I think it's difficult it's difficult to say it might be worth also looking at view number seven which I think has got the I mean it's difficult being this one which has got obviously got the existing the building set behind the existing tree coverage and obviously sobs that there you know there isn't it's kind of just above the tree line but some of those trees were saying would go but the ideal will be that we will be placing yeah I mean I think it go I mean some of them according to the notes some of them are going for a more a cultural reason so I assume there's a trees which are not I mean it's not very healthy so ideally we could replace the ones that are not very healthy with with new trees it's by no means that every tree along that that boundary is come is coming out so there there is still going to be an element of screening routine by those mature trees they say you may just get because there's only a few coming out in different in different places so you mean you've got to here but you can still see there's there's trees in this corner there are still a couple of trees in the bay so you're going to have pockets of maybe more visible intervening of the building and probably more likely in this bit here are there any other cancer partnership so I can't to go you put your which I noticed that we went through a couple of pictures that can I see them again yeah can you put your mic on yeah so that's the corner I just showed you here so the front so this corner here is that corner there this corner here only gets in filled at the very top see where it's so there's no so it's here and here so those are those are the three infilling elements I've got a couple of questions I just like to pick up as well just to the on the the Barnet residents Association said that their stated that CPZ permits would be would be available to to residents of the new development but my understanding is that they won't be just wanted to clarify that we would restrict the right to obtain permits thank you for that also there's been quite a lot of discussion around P tell three and for the report makes it very clear that this is P tell three but I'm also interested in policy each one of the London plan which talks about available you know about the development of available brownsfield sites and then puts a range of P tell three to six are you aware of any kind of distinction between three and four in that in that policy no so under the current policy it talks about optimizing sites from from three to six so that's what we have done and I've obviously said to this committee before the fact that as officers we don't feel having a three or four would change the scheme or would would change our advice as we have optimized the site because we feel is unique at the very at the very bottom of the hill and therefore optimizing it would produce for us the same result I think the similar question in a way that I put to one of the residents that having looked at the daylight sunlight analysis both in the application documents and in your report it does seem that in terms of comparing this scheme with the scheme which already has planning consent the one to six south close appears to be similar if not the same 22 South close seems to be similar with a small reduction as does 20 South close as does 19 South close but 21 South closes is an area where there is a reduction and that is the the VSC is reduced from point three seven to point three three and the distribution from point seven six to point five one I mean I guess it's it's a question I mean you've looked at it in the report you know whether you feel that is a significant reduction or as the applicant just just stated this is something you might expect given the configuration of that particular room in question. Yes so in the report we obviously have set or to set site from from the Smith report that from 19 a to 22 South close that there are some of those properties that will experience reductions in one assessment but comply on the other assessments so therefore in balance it's both some properties we have just experienced reductions that fall just below the BRE guidance or something so in one instance we kind of say well because it's relatively close to the BRE it's still fine to be acceptable the particular one that you've already pointed out and the report is 21 South close so from the original application and there was an assumed layout and from the previous application from it from the second application we obviously there wasn't there was a detailed visit that went to the property of South close measured the room measured the layout and so I think that is that so the highest set out within the previous report on this one is the most accurate position and yes it does come out that there's a combination of factors that it is the proposed development and the existing design of the overhang does result in a considerable reduction to one room off 21 South close and we recognize that's and that is stated within that that is that is a harm I think kind of the position that we've landed on yes we recognize there are reduction in levels across a number of properties however there's only one room which is said considerable the rest of them are relatively minor reductions across the rest of them so therefore it was taking them as a whole and we do I think we consider to be sort of a moderate harm across all of them. Thank you for that I mean I think I mean I've had a look through obviously all of the viewpoints which have been provided and certainly from you know one looks at view one two three four five and six in comparison to the original consented scheme the differences are marginal I would say obviously view seven which we looked at again there is there's clearly an impact there and that was the view I think that we focused on at the last committee meeting and there were some concerns about that in terms of having an impact and on the development and you know specifically a visual impact and there is as we discussed there is an impact in daylight which is marginally greater for particularly for property number 21 south close in this current scheme as compared with the scheme which is consented so I think you know there continue to be some harms which are caused by this scheme there are I think significant benefits attached to this scheme beyond what we looked at last time I think that 16 affordable social rented units given that that's more social rented units than we had even in the original scheme is a significant benefit and I think that sorry 17 I beg your pardon well even more so then and I think that's important and I think that that benefit also helps to make the overall housing delivery a more significant benefit and of course we have got over a hundred housing units now which will go some way to towards our current housing targets I think it is also important that we have got in front of us a scheme that I think we can we can consider to be viable given the level of profit that is indicated and the potential shortfall that there is there is a route there for the developer to deliver it and there is of course the addition of the viable employment space so I think you know this scheme has the ability to unlock this site and take forward something which has been sitting in with the developer with the planning authority for a few years now and on the tall building issue I would acknowledge that this is not an area that we designated for tall buildings but the it is it is as you see the same or very similar to the the original scheme and in fact the tall building element is actually just it's a it's a quirk of the the topography where in a sense there's only one part of the building which because the the idea is that the top floor is extended that effectively becomes an eight story element so but I think it would be important that if members were to approve this scheme that we would acknowledge that this is very exceptional it is entirely to do with the topography of the site and it is specifically to deliver some additional affordable housing so I think my view on balance is that the benefits do outweigh the harms that are that are caused and I would be proposing to vote in favour of the recommendations yeah I was just going to say that but before we put that out for anyone to make comment we have got some legal advice as well I think it would be wrong if I didn't highlight some of the legal aspects of this you're aware of course that there is an appeal that will be taking place pretty soon actually this week proof will be going out what you may not be aware of and I don't I don't laud this to you I simply state it for what it is it's been made clear both by the opponent's barrister and more recently by the director of the developer that were this planning application before you approved tonight they would withdraw that appeal that is a material planning consideration for you sir it is also relevant that you have grounds for appeal which we are defending we've got a barrister lined up to defend those and we will rigorously seek to defend those they do include the issues around PTAIL which we talked about they do include some of these issues around the the massing of the trees are they absolutely rock watertight to mix two metaphors well I think I've picked up from our barrister they have qualities that we will be that will be presented they may or may not be needed depending on what happens here that's why it is a relevant consideration for you I'm not going to spend time over costs we do know that that appeal will almost certainly include a cost application almost regardless of how the inspector concludes on this one I think members have been right to do the comparison between this application and the approved application and I say that with one caveat and that one caveat is that approved application has 35% affordable housing however by the time we reached the application the subject of this appeal not only did the applicants say there is no viability for that level of affordable housing so did the consultants I think they were consultants that were provided who provided evidence to you as the council so it isn't just the applicants saying it it's your own advisor saying there was not a situation where there could be viability now we might be disappointed that that went from 35% to zero and we you know that that's a concern nevertheless what you've heard from the applicant tonight is look we understand the importance of affordable housing here we want to do something about it is it really viable even now quite possibly not but they're prepared to take that hit I think these are points that you do have to put into the mix when you reach that decision because this isn't easy we don't bring it easy things to strategic planning but it's important to weigh up all of these things including the appeal where we see that appeal going and the risks and the prospects of that I'm not going to underestimate the impact on 21 south coast I can see all of that but this is one of the things we always have to do in planning is to balance the harm against benefits and if we can make those benefits work we will what I would also say is in terms of those trees we will have a 106 agreement in relation to this we won't be able to determine exactly where those trees go because we can't really do that for the 106 but we can make priorities within that to maximize and maintain that screening as best we can particularly in that area around south coast I hope that's helpful. Thank you yes very helpful I've got Councillor Barnes and then Councillor Cowley. Can I just ask for some clarification about the affordable housing and the review mechanism is it correct that the review can't make the number go down but it could go up or could it make it go down. Yeah it's there to capture so it can go up so we've secured the minimum so that is the minimum vision that we're securing the review mechanisms are there to capture any uplift so we've got to yeah there's two stages we've got an early stage and a late stage to capture two different points. Yeah I don't think this one did but previous viability assessments often have a set of calculations which look at a five percent uplift in costs and a five percent downturn in values and vice versa the first one doesn't affect us because the number won't go down but obviously if land values if sale values go up by a margin then you know we would be in a position where there would be more funding available usually by the time the late stage review happens it's very difficult to put that actually as properties in the development so normally it would be a cash contribution but yes it can only from our perspective it can only go up yeah yeah. Councillor Cohen. Yeah the representative the company was saying that the housing association would deal with the social housing thing will that be set will that be regulated that be set out in some kind of a condition or will that be regulated so that we have will we have any control over the way that's done so that it does happen in a way that's that we're happy with. Yes Councillor so as I said the so the affordable units usually get sold to a an RP here usually have to be on our approved list or known to us so they know kind of the barnet requirements immediately and I say we secured social rent that is set out nationally what that rent level is and the 106 secures that a hundred percent of those nominations come from barnet regardless of at any point in perpetuity so it will maintain those on the barnet waiting this benefit from those properties. Are there any other questions? You were bound to get a comment and it's just a few words but it's still very big very ugly and very undesirable. Thank you for the comment I mean I think the point that was made is that we are there is a comparator with the existing consented scheme and yeah okay are there any other are there any other comments? Okay so shall we move to the vote just in doing that I would reiterate the the I guess the conclusion that that I've drawn from that is that we're still we're not saying that there isn't harm caused by these proposals but that in if we agree the recommendations we're doing so on the basis that the the benefits to the scheme including the affordable housing the level of housing the delivery and the employment space are outweighing those the harms that are that are that are caused by the development so if we would like to move to the vote on the recommendations those are contained in section two of the report which is to approve the scheme subject to effectively subject to section 106 agreement and the conditions in the report all those in favor please indicate one two three four five six in favor all those against please indicate two against so the decision is carried six votes to two thank you all very much for your attendance this evening I haven't been notified of any urgent items or any other business if anyone has any other items though so I would then declare the meeting closed thank you all very much thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

Good evening everyone. It's seven o'clock, so shall we kick off and welcome to the Strategic Planning Committee on the 14th of October. I'm Councillor Nigel Young and I chair the Strategic Planning Committee and thank you for attending this evening. I will ask members of the committee first to introduce themselves, followed by the planning officers, legal officers and governance. Shall we start with Councillor Gordon tonight? I'm Councillor Shree Gordon, Edgware Ward. I'm Richard Cornelius, Totridge and Woodside Ward. I'm Councillor Narges Narathira, Councillor of Scollindale South Ward. I'm Councillor Rishikesh Chakraborty representing West Hendon Ward. Councillor Richard Barnes representing Barnet Vale Ward. Thank you very much. I'll ask that everyone remain seated throughout the meeting, unless you are called to the table to address the committee. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in law or by the Council. By attending either in person or online you may be picked up on recordings. Council recordings are covered by our privacy notice which can be found at barnet.gov.uk. For each application, although there's only one application tonight, the planning officer will present the application. Each speaker will have three minutes to address the committee. The governance officer will inform you when there is one minute left. The committee will have the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers. Following discussion, the committee will determine the application and the chair will announce the committee decision. When you are called to speak, and obviously members of the committee who I think know this, please press the middle speaker icon to turn on the mic and ensure that after you finish speaking you press the microphone off to ensure there is no feedback. So if I move to the agenda for the meeting, first item is the minutes of the last meeting. Are we happy that I agree these minutes, held on the 16th of September? Apologies for absence. Being notified of one, Apology Councillor Eva Greenspan and we wish her well this evening. Declarations of members, other interests? I haven't been notified of any. Dispensations granted by the monitoring officer, I'm not aware of any. There is an addendum to the report, are we happy to accept the addendum? That's agreed. So if we move to the first substantive item which is INTEC House 49 Moxon Street and the planning officer is going to take us through this application. Thank you. A little bit of very quick context. The committee may recall that in July it heard an application on the site relating to a non-determination appeal. During those discussions we had informed the committee that we were discussing alternative options with the applicant in the background and in order to make the scheme deliver on site affordable units. This application is the result of those discussions and I will talk you through some of those discussions and what has come out of that. I know the committee are familiar with the site and the context. So we have the site in red, a mostly vacant industrial unit at the bottom of Moxon Street. Just some aerial views in red surrounded by a residential and employment at the bottom. Again some views, the site is where the red star is at the very bottom. And just some quick site images. It's an existing two three storey office, employment commercial building. Propose block plan. So during the discussions here we looked at a number of different options with the third scheme. So we have the consensus scheme down the left hand side here which was for 92 units which delivered 35% on site affordable housing. Then a part of the appeal scheme had an increase of 98 units but had no on site affordable. And so exploring options with the applicant we looked at a number of different options which included reducing the employment floor space. We looked at reconfiguring the existing layout, the existing massing. And we have also explored where additional massing could be accommodated within the building to help deliver more on site affordable. So that is the combination of those three elements that has resulted in the current scheme. So just summarising that, there's now an increase of units on site, 113. There's an additional storey and no taller overall. And what that has allowed us to achieve is the provision of 17 on site social rented units. So that equates to 15% affordable housing provision by habitable room and by unit. As I just explained, the result of that then means there's a reduced commercial floor space, so about half of that. The car parking remains the same. And then the subsequent play space, external and shared amenity has increased in line with that. There's also another comparison in comparing the affordable housing offers. So on the left hand side again was the consent scheme, so that comprised of 29 units in a 60/40 split. So that was 16 affordable rented units, 13 intermediate. The appeal scheme obviously had nothing and what we secured within the latest scheme is 17 social rented units. So I'm just flagging that up. So as I talked about, there are a number of different options which this current scheme is different from the previous one. So we talked about increased massings. We have identified three corners of the building where the building could accommodate increased massing. They are particularly along the two corners on the northern elevation and then the rear of the east elevation and I'll show you those now and the changes before and after. So in terms of the internal reconfiguration, as I said, we have reduced the level of employment space on site and reconfigured that. So we have been able to rejig the upper ground floor level, so we've got additional units at the front and to the side. And then on the upper floor levels, this is the mezzanine, so again, mostly internal configuration at this level, reducing the level of employment. Then at the third and fourth floor levels, then there's additional mass in this particular corner over two levels, as you can see by the orange. And then an additional story or additional mass in the very back of the site, as you can kind of see here. So elevation-wise, so how that looks, consent of the scheme is on the left-hand side, so here you can kind of see the additional mass in this particular corner and also then you can kind of see it protruding at the very back, so in here. How that looks on the rear elevation, so again, you can kind of see the green element has been extended along the top. And then from the south side, so again, what you'll see mostly on this side is just the extension to the top. And then the northern elevation from south close, you see it from this corner here, it's been infilled at two storeys and then the uppermost floor is here. So this is the element that, as I say, now constitutes the tall building element because you get eight storeys then at the very back of the site down this bit. So just again, I mean, you've essentially seen these, but these are just typical floor plans of the units spread out and then the communal floor space has been moved to the roof, so there's still some first floor level and then largely on the roof. Separation distances to the neighbourhood route is largely unchanged. I mean, this is a previous, I don't have an updated one, but as you can kind of see, what the latest scheme just infills, this area here and this area here, and so the distances between the buildings remain unchanged. Just to remind the committee of the tree position, as we discussed before, there are a number of trees to be removed along here, so there's a couple here and a couple beside the pumping station where the large majority of the trees are to be retained, protected. And just quickly summarising then the different viewpoint assessments, so this is kind of pathway up Moxon Street and you can't quite at this point, you kind of see there's the red of the existing and then there's an additional yellow line of the additional matching, you'll see it come more into play, but so you can kind of see it would slowly start to be visible at the very upper levels only, as you come closer to the site, and in this view mostly behind the trees, again a small element up here, from Snowbury Close, again you will largely see the additional matching from the rear, up on this corner, and from the London Loop, still largely un-visible, sitting behind here, and then from South Close, again the existing consented scheme in red, and then where the infill bit will be going in here, and then the additional top story would become much more visible here. So just to summarise, the key changes from the previous applications, again so there's no additional matching and reconfiguration to help deliver on-site affordable units, and this results in increased massing at the upper levels, reduced employment, a tall building element at the rear, and it's a largely secure 17th on-site affordable, which we have secured as 15% social rent. Needing on from obviously the committee's decision from July that there was obviously a level of harm from the cumulative scale of density, obviously from the increased massing, we recognise then it will have further harm than what you acknowledged or decided before, so both in terms of the scale and density, and also on the neighbour and amenity in terms of the daylight/sunlight. However, in the planning balance, officers have obviously kind of weighed up the benefits against the harms, and we consider that sniffing of weight should be given to the on-site affordable, which overall then concludes the scheme to be acceptable from an officer's recommendation. So the recommendation is for approval subject to the section 106 and conditions set out in the report. Just briefly in the addendum, so the addendum just updates a few matters, so one is just confirming or clarifying, A, on the affordable housing that it's social rent we're securing, and then we provide extra clarity on the loss of tree provisions, we have further stipulated that priority of the loss of trees or replanting should be in that area between South Close and the application site where those trees are proposed to be removed, and there are a couple of amendments to a couple of the conditions which just talk about an updated ecological report, so hopefully that explains the addendum, so nothing further to add. Thank you for that. We have three speakers on this item, two objectors and then someone speaking on behalf of the applicant. So if I could ask Darren Taylor down here if you could come to the middle desk. I think we all received your email earlier, and thank you for the paper copy. So you've got the middle icon with the sort of speaker, when you're ready start, maybe wait for Governor's Office to sit down and we'll give you three minutes and then we'll give you a one-minute warning when you've got one minute left. When you're ready just start. Evening. I represent a committee of 65 neighbours joined in objections to this enlarged application. At the last Strategic Planning Committee meeting the members rejected in principle the concurrent application over concerns including cumulative scale, density and impact on the neighbouring buildings, proximity to the Greenbelt, the Monk and Hadley conservation area and a lack of information relating to affordable housing. This application has not addressed any of those issues raised and further increased the height, massing and density, its impact on the Greenbelt and is even more ambiguous when it comes to the affordable homes element. The eighth floor has been greatly expanded and roof terrace and playground moved to essentially a ninth floor. I would also like to draw your attention to the A4 informative provided to members highlighting just some of the failings to meet the required legislation, policy, targets and guidelines, as well as the key visual impacts that have been deliberately excluded from the heritage, townscape and visual impact assessments in each application so far. The Barnet Residents Association have said, We have been scrutinising planning applications in the High Barnet area for more than 15 years and consider this to be one of the most ill-conceived that we have ever seen. A development of this scale should not even be entertained. Barnet Policy CS5 identifies tall buildings are not permitted on this site. Barnet Policy DM05 states that tall buildings outside of strategic locations will not be considered acceptable. Even Barnet Emerging Policy will acknowledge this location for tall building development. Why are these policies made if they can continually be ignored in favour of developer greed? The developer and planning officer finally agreed that this is a P-Towel 3 site but are still pushing a development density akin to Zone 2 in London, not a suburban leafy suburb of High Barnet. The London Plan states that the density of a P-Towel 3 site should be between 150 and 450 habitable rooms per hectare, depending on your definition of 'urban' and 'suburban'. This design density is between 3-fold and 10-fold the density designated for this location. We have two neighbours who work in property lending, development and valuation who have identified over 20 problems with the contradictory documents. The developers' viability assessment concludes the scheme cannot viably support the delivery of any affordable housing, whilst also saying it will be agreed during the determination phase. The Planning Statement says 'affordable homes percentage to be confirmed' but also 'allow for the provision of on-site affordable housing in principle'. It's unclear where the figure of 15% affordable homes has even come from, it's first mentioned within the officer's report. This application remains too ambiguous. We request a truly independent, expert review of the viability assessment to ensure objectivity and accuracy. If the developer cannot financially make the scheme work with or without the affordable homes element, they should either downsize the scheme or sell to a developer that can make it work. As we've said all along, a five-storey development would be agreeable by both the community and surroundings. Eight to nine storeys is nothing but absurd. Thank you. Thank you very much. If you press the button off and then if someone asks you a question you'll have to put it back on again I'm afraid. Has anyone got any questions that they'd like to ask? Councillor Barnes. Good evening. Can you tell me where you live and how you're personally going to be impacted? I know you're representing lots of people but just to give you a bit of personal background. Hi, I live at the bottom of South Close, number 21. With the lights and daylight assessments, we're probably going to be the most affected because the independent reports and our independent reports suggest that we're going to lose up to 65% of the light that we currently receive and we're going to be put into shadow for possibly six to seven months of the year. We're directly opposite where the trees are all being removed, so some of the tree screening is being kept but what we've also done, some of the documents show tree coverage, some of the documents say they're being removed. Again that's quite ambiguous, there is now in the officer's report saying that some of the trees might be planted, we've seen on the addendum just now that some trees will potentially be replanted along there, but opposite our house they're all being taken away and we're going to see eight storeys and there's going to be eight storeys of balconies looking directly into our property and into our bathrooms with no tree coverage and that tree coverage has been there for at least 70 years. So yeah we're at the bottom, me and Andy both live on South Close, on the lower part of South Close, we're greatly affected but we do represent the neighbourhood and it's about 65 other households. Councillor Cohen. Yeah I just wasn't quite sure what you're saying about affordable, this scheme would provide a certain number of social housing units which will amount to 15% of the total. Do you accept that and would that be, you accept that that would be a benefit to a community that would not be realised by the previous iteration of the scheme? Yeah we're for the affordable homes, we were against the very first application but we obviously failed in stopping that one, but that was an agreement that 35% affordable homes would be included and we completely disagree that the developer couldn't afford that or couldn't fulfil that obligation. 15% I think is a bit of a joke from the developer, I agree it's still better than the last application but I think the developers playing games quite clearly 15% is nowhere near the 50% that's supposed to be there or the 35% that previously agreed they're playing a game and I really hope that they don't just get to profiteer and one other point as well, the 15% affordable homes has not been in any of the documents in the application, it's only been in the officer's report, so looking through there's no indication, as I said the planning statement has contradictory points in there, not saying anything to do with 17 units or 15%, the financial viability assessment also doesn't have anything about 15 units or 17 units or 15%, the first we've seen that they will be aiming for 15% is in the planning officer's report because that's not indicated in any of the documents in the application. But it's now been offered by the developer, it's now been agreed with them if we were to go ahead. I accept that they will probably fall back on that in the future and they will probably come back and say they can't afford it. In the documents it does say that it will go through a process of review during the development and we can just foresee that they will probably say they can't afford it and nothing will get included and they will do a token insulting gesture of £30,000, £60,000, it's not even the cost of a quarter of a one-bed flat towards the community, so I don't agree with their assessments and we would prefer that a truly independent financial assessment is implemented because the last application, the documents were so unclear, with this application they're probably even more unclear, it's very difficult to actually decipher what's going on and clearly the planning office having discussions behind the scenes and putting that into the planning officer's report but that's not available to the general public, so the first we knew of the 15% is in the planning officer's report last week. Okay well we can follow those up with the developer and with the planning officer. You mentioned that potentially a five-storey development would be acceptable, I mean one of the things that is very apparent when you visit the site is the difference in level. Are you thinking five-storey sort of opposite your house but as it goes down the slope that quickly becomes two additional storeys, so if you could just clarify what you were saying then that would be really helpful. The existing building is a three-storey building but it's staggered over one storey, so opposite our house there's three storeys, slightly up the hill it's still three storeys, there is a step in the building and I think as a general consensus we would probably be happy with the five-storey building again if it was stepped up the slope it would still generally be hidden behind the trees, it would still poke a bit out the top of the trees but approximately four storeys would be hidden by the existing trees and what we do find difficult is a lot of the documents when they say it's going to be well hidden within the trees then there's other documents saying you'll have far reaching views over the green belt and you can't have both. It will be as you can see from the handout there's a view from King George Fields that we've mocked up that is fairly accurate using our sort of measuring methods but that view has been deliberately withheld from the townscape and the heritage which would be one of the most useful ones as well as the bottom of South Place which is where the most impact is going to be on the residential areas. So again that image has also been withheld from, well just not included in the townscape and the heritage assessments, impact assessments but that's been since the very first application we've highlighted it quite a few times that it would be really useful that the public can see exactly what impact this building is going to be doing and when we've sent this through to our neighbours and our community group and the wider neighbours everyone is generally shocked at the size and the impact which doesn't come across in the documents that are available on the application. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Okay thank you very much. We've got also Andy Shamash, yeah great. Same routine, you press the middle icon button and you'll have three minutes for my new start. Thank you and you'll get a one minute warning. Members as acknowledged in the officer's report this proposed scheme would result in significant harm to the surrounding neighbourhood including my family at 19A South Close. This harm mainly comes in the form of an unacceptable level of overlooking into our property as well as several others at the bottom of South Close. Units on the higher floors will be able to look directly into our bedrooms even with the existing tree screen and this already significant harm is made much worse by the proposed removal of several trees which currently play a vital role as a visual screen between South Close and the scheme without any certainty as to what level of replanting will take place. Additionally, as acknowledged in the report, the scheme has a significant impact on our levels of natural light. As has been pointed out by the Barnet Residence Association, the original consent of the 92 unit scheme was considerably flawed, informed by an incorrect retail rating, its height and massing are greatly out of character to the surrounding area. It did however at least make a contribution to the borough in its provision of 35% affordable housing. The developer's viability assessment, which has not been independently reviewed, contends that even with a reduced 15% affordable provision, the scheme falls short of viability. Although as a property finance professional myself, I noted the generous allowances within the figures of over 10 million developer profit and 2.5 million contingency. And if we are to believe this assessment, if the scheme is not viable even with the more than halved affordable provision, how is the developer going to be able to deliver it? The members should be aware of the well-publicised previous failures of this developer, notably in respect of the Parklet Place scheme in Kilburn, which collapsed with 26 million of debt in a more favourable economic environment. And is it not likely, or even obvious given their previous application, that if consent for this scheme is obtained, the developers will again plead poverty and look to submit a further scheme backed by yet another viability assessment, reducing the affordable provision again and maximising their profits at the expense of Barnet residents. My neighbours and I are not anti-development, but the solution to the apparent deliverability issue of the approved scheme is not to load more and more units onto an already overdeveloped scheme. There is potential on this site for a scheme, especially when considered with the neighbouring site of Fortune House, also owned by this developer. Our suggestion to the applicant is to look again at the whole site, preferably with meaningful local consultation, in order to produce a scheme which delivers valuable housing, minimising unnecessary harm to the local area. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have members of the committee got any questions? Just going back to your last comment, I'm just wondering what you mean by the developer putting forward an alternative scheme. I mean, this is their latest alternative of what they say is affordable from their point of view. So you think they could put forward something that's much more acceptable? We – the developer's also sort of – a separate scheme, Fortune House, that has received a sort of resolution to grant for 41 units, I believe, adjacent to this development. So our suggestion is that, you know, sort of, I guess, sympathetic to their viability concerns, but the solution is not to just increase massing, increase harm to the local environment. You know, look again at the whole scheme together with, you know, the adjacent site, sort of come up with a scheme, you know, in consultation with local residents that, you know, doesn't have the benefits but without the sort of significant harm that this scheme does. So you think that this scheme is making up for just having a smaller Fortune House next door, which presumably would have more impact on Snowbury Court next door to that? I mean, I think when you compare this with the existing consented scheme, what you've got is increased harm to the local area by the sort of increased massing, overlooking, loss of natural light, trees, et cetera. You think that's because the other one is smaller, because it's making up for – You know, what we're sort of saying is that when you're comparing it to the existing consented scheme, increased harm, less benefit, that's the sort of essential equation, isn't it? There's sort of, you know, if the original scheme was sort of – it's been acknowledged that that does cause harm to the local environment, and, you know, members judged with the 92 state scheme that the provision of 35% affordable, you know, on balance outweighed that harm. You know, what's happening with this application is there's increased harm and less sort of affordable benefit. To a large extent, we're looking at this compared to the first approved scheme, which is still, instead of being approved, whether or not they're able financially to build it or not. So to some extent, or to a large extent, we're looking at the increased harm that this will do over the first one, which, again, was very large and had an impact on you. So is the extra harm that this will do excessive? You know, how do you quantify the extra harm that this scheme will do? You know, what our sort of argument would be, the initial decision could be argued to have been a flawed decision. It was one of the sort of important points that we made. At the time, the site was considered a P-TEL 4, which I think was a big part of informing the original consent, and I think it's now acknowledged that that was not a correct designation. And also take that into account, you know, sort of amendments to an originally flawed scheme, you know, should be sort of seen in that light. But yes, our case sort of absolutely is that there is a significantly increased level of harm with this scheme in terms of views, in terms of our natural light, and clearly there's less benefit to the borough in the form of 15% affordable housing, which is significantly less than the original scheme. You mentioned the impact to your property on daylight and sunlight. I mean, the assessment I've looked at suggests that obviously there is a reduction, but that reduction largely speaking falls within guidelines of the BRE set. Are you familiar with that assessment, or are you sort of disagreeing with that assessment? I just kind of want to know. It's difficult to disagree with a professional assessment. Certainly, you know, perhaps my property is one of the bungalows on South Close, sort of acknowledge that my property is one of the least affected, but you know, it certainly was pointed out in the officer's report that some of the loss of natural light was, you know, sort of not within guidelines, and it seems to be that that's, you know, it always seems to be judged on the basis of on balance, but I think it's even sort of acknowledged in the officer's report, there is a significant issue on our properties, probably Darren's more than mine. Sure, yes, and that's mentioned in the officer's report, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. Is there any further questions for anyone? Thank you very much. Oh, I beg your pardon, Councillor Cornelius. Just one, if I may. Do you feel that, aesthetically, if one ignores all the sort of surveyor talk, et cetera, do you feel that the infill on the top floor actually has a bigger impact aesthetically than it may do physically, in that it becomes so much more slab-like? I sort of always come back to, and I know you're sort of comparing it with the existing consented scheme, but I know there was a site visit the other day, it's always amazing to me that an eight-storey scheme was sort of consented in the first place when you consider the surrounding area. I think it is out of character, and I think it is sort of inappropriate when you look at the general area of the neighbourhood, it certainly seems that first time round, with the 92-unit scheme, they got more than they could reasonably have expected, and it's therefore very difficult now to see them just trying to build on that great result that they got before, and sort of loading more and more units onto the scheme, I don't think it's something that should be accepted. But yes, I think your point is a valid one, that what we get with the aesthetic of the new scheme is that sort of slab-like effect, perhaps less than the slightly more graduated view of the consented scheme. Thank you very much. We're very pleased to present the scheme to you this evening. That reflects months of design work and consultation with your officers, as well as being better designed to meet local housing needs. The proposal delivers a high-quality development that balances community benefits with robust design. Members will be aware that there's next-stand permission on the site, the first application it's often referred to, that is no longer viable due to dramatic changes to the housing market. Very similar scheme was then brought forward earlier this year, which was refused, with the biggest concern amongst members being the level of affordable housing on site. We've listened carefully to that feedback. We have explored every avenue to make the scheme viable for on-site affordable housing, the result of which you see before you this evening, which delivers 15% affordable housing, all of which will be socially-rented homes. To provide this increase, we've increased the number of units on the site, but this is achieved by seeking to infill appropriate elements of the building. It is no higher than the originally approved scheme. The SATE scheme is also no closer to existing dwellings than the originally approved scheme, and your officers report SATE that they find the plans acceptable in townscape terms. It's also, and I really want to emphasise this point, because we've now got a scheme that is 100% socially-rented rather than 60% socially-rented on the first scheme, we now have one more social home than the approved scheme, so 17 socially-rented homes rather than 16. So the building will step down in height towards Moxon Street, with the largest part of the building being at the bottom of the site, ensuring it integrates smoothly with the surrounding townscape. To minimise the visual impact, china trees and landscaping will enhance the site. In line with sustainability objectives, the scheme will include solar panels, air source heat pumps and measures to achieve biodiversity net gain, well in excess of the 77-year-old city. A thorough transport assessment has been conducted, demonstrating a net decrease in vehicular transport compared to the current use. We have listened to concerns on daylight/sunlight through thorough, detailed testing of the surrounding units. In summary, this is a scheme of high quality and thoughtful design, and offering significant public benefits. It represents the regeneration of a brownfield site, providing much-needed housing, including on-site socially-rented homes and employment space in a sustainable, community-focused manner. By incorporating 17 socially-rented homes, Intech House is helping to deliver more homes with the greatest housing need. We are pleased the application is recommended for approval by our officers, and we hope you agree with this carefully considered development, and it can be agreed this evening. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, thank you very much. I have got Councillor Cornelius, Councillor Barnes and Councillor Farrier. Don't worry, I will come back for another round if there are. Councillor Cornelius. Thank you very much. Please excuse me if it is in the report, and I have missed this. The socially-rented housing that is going to be on this site, should the application go ahead, could you go into that in a little more detail, please? What do you mean by a social rent? Will that be the same as a Barnet Homes rent? Who are you thinking will manage the socially-rented property, and who will have the nomination rights to that property, please? So it will be a socially-rented home and market rent set in line with what is agreed with in the legal agreement, which is set by Barnet Council. I will look to your officer here, and I believe it is 60% of market rent, I believe that to be correct, you may want to just come back on that one, but it is not affordable rent, London Living rent, it is socially rent as defined by Barnet Council. One site provision will be transferred across to a housing association, that will be part of the section 106 agreement for that to be delivered, and then nomination rights will be for Barnet Council to determine who is in the greatest need on your housing register to occupy those units. Councillor Barnes. Thank you, there was some suggestion of linkage with the adjoining site, would you like to comment on that? Yeah, look I can completely understand why people are kind of linking the two, they are obviously two separate applications, and there are very good reasons for that, number one there is a different ownership structure on Fortune House in which the landowner is part of the development arm there, and this applicant is project managing the scheme, whereas on this site they purely own the site, and because there is an existing occupier with a longer lease, these two schemes will be brought forward in very different timescales. This one we want to get cracking on with straight away, hence why we are here with application number three, Fortune House will just take a little bit longer, and there is no connection here in terms of viability of the two, the level of development that has been set on the site is based on the individual assessments of each site and what we think can be safely contained in terms of capacity, in terms of townscape terms and design, and so there is no connection there at all in terms of viability or cross subsidy or anything like that. Yes, I want to address one of the first things you say, that this is better designed to meet local housing needs, and it is no higher than the approved scheme, now we have heard that one particular corner, although it may seem overall not higher, there is an infill, the top step back floor is coming forward so it will be higher, and better designed, I think it is not better designed, so I wondered if you could expand on your design comments. So I will just deal with a second point first, apologies if I wasn't clear, what I meant to say, if I didn't say it was better designed to meet local housing needs, i.e. previous scheme didn't have any affordable housing on site, this one delivers the affordable housing on site in terms of those 17 socially rented homes, so it is better designed to meet those local housing needs, apologies if that wasn't clear. Very fair challenge in terms of that height point, I suspect it is probably when you have only got three minutes to expand on all of the details there, so you have got that top story at the moment on the approved scheme and we have filled in around it, so it is no higher than that existing highest point, perhaps that would be the most accurate representation of the point I am trying to make there. Yes look, and I think to be fair your officer did highlight that there will be more visibility of the scheme within the street scene and it is of course unavoidable when you are delivering more units and increasing the density, you can't hide those units away, they will appear from certain locations, particularly when you are very close to them, you will see more of the building, but in terms of from a townscape perspective, when you are further step back, which is the purpose of the policy on tall buildings, is that it won't have a significant impact in terms of those views, it is only we are going to see it closer up on South Place. Thank you, what do you say to the residents' points about the loss of daylight and sunlight for certain properties on South Close, what is your, because obviously they are concerned about that, and that is a harm to them, what would you be doing about that? Yes and look, it is completely understandable in terms of daylight and sunlight impact that residents would be objection and raising concerns on that and we completely understand that. The point here is that there is, we are broadly within the guidelines in terms of what BRE sets for guidelines, it is not a requirement that you meet that and quite often there are schemes that exceed or fall below those guidelines, in this instance we are pretty much there on all of the existing dwellings, there is the one property in terms of 21 South Close that does have more of a significant impact and we are not trying to hide away from that. Why it probably looks a little bit worse than it does in terms of the figures is that one of the units, the ones that is most affected is the living room which is very long and thin, so it relies on daylight at the front of the room in terms of the building, and that bedroom as I understand it also has quite a big overhang as well so the area that it takes its light from is like that basically, so even a slight increase in height compared to what is there already has quite a significant impact on the numbers, so it is a case of if you do want to develop this site for any kind of increase in height on that site, inevitably there will be a significant impact on that one specific room because of its layout and the way that it is, and that is obviously something that you as members will have to balance in terms of the level of harm, both myself and the officer have come to the conclusion that that harm benefit should be in favour of a proven scheme, obviously you will have to make your own decision. How would you react if it was your bedroom? How would I react? That is a good question isn't it? Look I regularly write and support planning applications in my neighbourhood, I can understand why people would be disappointed with what is happening in that specific site, but at the end of the day as planning officers and planning committees you have to take everything in the round don't you, and something has got to happen on that site, something has to happen with it, it can't stay as it is, and as I said it is inevitable that there will be some impact on 21 South Close if this site is to be delivered. Are there any other questions? I've got a few questions. I mean on that issue, part of Councillor Cohen's question I think was that you are right having reviewed the daylight and sunlight analysis and what is in the officer report, there are some impacts around a number of the properties but the biggest impact is on that room in number 21 which I think the distribution in the consented scheme is something like 0.76 distribution of light and that drops down to 0.51 in the new scheme, or the scheme we are considering now I should say. I mean I think part of his question was is there anything that as a developer you can do to help that situation in terms of the resident there? I don't think there is if you want to deliver the amount of socially rented housing that we are looking to deliver here. The units on the upper floor are one of the few places that we think is sensible and appropriate to deliver the additional housing that enables this level of affordable housing that we are coming with you today. As I say, I don't think there is anything that can be done on that point. It is just an unfortunate quirk of the layout of that building and the way in which the windows interact with the scheme. Okay, thank you. So you talked a bit about the viability and it has been mentioned by a couple of the residents as well. In terms of the viability assessment, it looks like we obviously as you know that was one of the reasons that we refused this scheme last time as we were concerned about the viability effectively. So I am paraphrasing but effectively concerned about that. You have currently got a situation where your residual land value is about minus 3 million. But I did note that in that viability assessment you are looking at a 20% profit which is around about £10 million. So I suppose I am putting those two things together but I am interested to know how you are addressing the current deficit in the viability assessment. Is your question essentially how would the scheme deliver for what it takes to make the development? Exactly, yes. Sorry, could you put your microphone on? Sorry, apologies. As I say, it is a fair point. These are very challenging times for the development sector given the construction costs and the house prices decrease as we have seen in recent years and there are a lot of hard decisions that need to be made by developers. In this instance it is a case of the developer has to take a hit in terms of what their return is on the site compared to what they originally envisioned for the site. As a small and medium sized developer they need these schemes to be coming out of the ground and to be delivering them in order to fund further schemes. We are not talking about Barra or Avistra or Bellway or anything like that. They need these schemes to be coming out of the ground and therefore that is why these difficult decisions around deliverability are being made. Sort of to pick up on that point, how long have you been trying to develop this site for? Your client took over the ownership of this land and I would be interested to know how long it has been like it is. This was nothing to do with my client or ourselves but there was originally a permitted development rights application on this site for an Office to Resi conversion which was refused and I think that may have been by the original owner and the point at which that kind of reached a dead end is when they started to sell it. So I think our involvement, the application was, I think it was September 2022 was submitted so I think we had about nine months. I suspect the start of January 2022 was when we started on it if my memory is correct and obviously that was a very different time in terms of interest rates and construction costs and pre-inflation and the budget and I guess the one thing that I would highlight here in terms of what changed since that first application is that a couple of months after the application was submitted we had the budget that led to the very high increases in terms of interest rates and so we had a very different scenario by the time the application was finally approved in terms of the viability of the scheme. It has certainly been around two to three years plus in terms of the project. So one of the things that the Planning Officer mentioned in the report was around looking at options around the employment space and obviously you have decided to keep some employment space which I think obviously that is a positive thing. I mean how viable do you feel that employment space is in that location? Is that something that you are feeling that you will be able to sell or rent or whatever and make a good viable place for employment uses? Yeah I guess the one thing I would say is that to start off with is that development doesn't, viability and success doesn't rise and fall on the employment space within it. It's always been designed in mind with the fact that this isn't the place where you're going to get a big employer coming in. It's designed as small units that are almost kind of incubators for those start-ups that need some floor space and don't want to take you on the high street or can't afford somewhere particularly expensive. And in terms of the reason why the level it's set at is where it is is basically you could not convert that floor space into residential use. It wouldn't be suitable for that purpose. So it serves two purposes. One is it makes very good use of the floor space and helps with your kind of place making of the scheme. It gives you a very nice kind of entrance and sort of an active frontage in that location. And also you get a mixture of uses there as well so you can help support some local small businesses hopefully. Thank you. Has anyone got any further follow up questions? Okay thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Okay we now move to the part of the meeting where members of the committee can ask questions of the officers and make comments and discuss the application before we then move to a vote on the application. Has anyone got any comments or questions they would like to make? Councillor Barnes. Right I've got a few of the issues that were brought up previously. Hopefully maybe somebody else will ask some questions. So part of the development is now going to be eight storeys and that comes into the realm of being classified as a tall building and it's been suggested that this is not a location that should be having a tall building. Right but the policy is that you still have to assess it against the relevant criteria. So whilst it doesn't necessarily mean it's not appropriate there are circumstances which may allow for it to be appropriate or where the balancing exercise may find it appropriate. So in this particular instance we looked at different areas of the scheme which could accommodate additional massing and we felt that whilst the additional bit at the very back could accommodate it and become a tall building but it's no taller overall. So whilst it infills the tallest element still is the tallest element it's no taller than that and it's only because of the topography of the land that it becomes, that it's eight storeys and a tall building. So I mean the policy kind of sets out those particular locations from a townscape point of view where it is where we deem it more appropriate but doesn't say that it can't be considered altogether. I think that's the way we've carried out this exercise. Okay I think I get that. Can I ask about the trees as well? Specifically how many trees are being removed and I think it was suggested there might be replacements possible by some mechanism. So the tree position is exactly the same as each of the previous applications. There are two trees within that. So there's a large sort of more dense group of trees on the corner and then as you go down they become a little more scattered and a little bit more open. So there's a couple of trees from here and then around Popping Station in here. So that hasn't changed and it's very explicitly set out in the plans and in the report. So is that a total of four trees? Yeah and so the rest of them I said then this is the tree protection plan. So there are obviously kind of four street trees which we are covering the value for their loss and previously we have just kind of said and I think the consent scheme just says the money shall be spent by the green spaces team. So what we have tried to ensure and to beef up that provision and some of the comments that have been raised by the residents is and we have kind of indicative and spoken to the green spaces team is that can we can we use some of that money and specifically say and target it along this area as a priority first so they can use as much of that money to plant as much as they can in that area and that's what that's kind of we've expanded them with the in the addendum so in the event that permission is granted then green spaces are very clear how that money is to be spent and where it's to be spent and this is a we've been thinking I've been particularly spoken to the green spaces team here said to in principle they are happy to look at that. Now we can secure replanting or where the site and how many trees were that within this application because outside of the redline site so our green spaces team can only start looking at that is once permission is granted and the money is is secured so hopefully that kind of makes sense but sorry just on that point it wasn't us with the replanting address would that help in some way you see them would it disguise some of the massing was it the massing or the daylight sunlight day so the help of the screening it will by no means I think we're admitting that it will by no means screen or covered entirely and but some of the concerns raised ours that it will become it it will be a bit more visible than with a bit more visible without it so some so if we can get some replanting back in then at least that is some form of mitigation of the mass of the massing yeah what about the doesn't affect the daylight sunlight issue no of the houses I just want to check that right but that you can't guarantee I can't guarantee but we were obviously getting the money the money is guaranteed so the limits of that and and then but it's obviously kind of I can't tell you where exactly until green spaces go down and survey the land they kind of say well look we could get X number of trees here or X type of hedging here or this is how much money we could spend that's the that's the position I just can't the best case how much of the massing would it disguise or cover I can't I think it's difficult it's difficult to say it might be worth also looking at view number seven which I think has got the I mean it's difficult being this one which has got obviously got the existing the building set behind the existing tree coverage and obviously sobs that there you know there isn't it's kind of just above the tree line but some of those trees were saying would go but the ideal will be that we will be placing yeah I mean I think it go I mean some of them according to the notes some of them are going for a more a cultural reason so I assume there's a trees which are not I mean it's not very healthy so ideally we could replace the ones that are not very healthy with with new trees it's by no means that every tree along that that boundary is come is coming out so there there is still going to be an element of screening routine by those mature trees they say you may just get because there's only a few coming out in different in different places so you mean you've got to here but you can still see there's there's trees in this corner there are still a couple of trees in the bay so you're going to have pockets of maybe more visible intervening of the building and probably more likely in this bit here are there any other cancer partnership so I can't to go you put your which I noticed that we went through a couple of pictures that can I see them again yeah can you put your mic on yeah so that's the corner I just showed you here so the front so this corner here is that corner there this corner here only gets in filled at the very top see where it's so there's no so it's here and here so those are those are the three infilling elements I've got a couple of questions I just like to pick up as well just to the on the the Barnet residents Association said that their stated that CPZ permits would be would be available to to residents of the new development but my understanding is that they won't be just wanted to clarify that we would restrict the right to obtain permits thank you for that also there's been quite a lot of discussion around P tell three and for the report makes it very clear that this is P tell three but I'm also interested in policy each one of the London plan which talks about available you know about the development of available brownsfield sites and then puts a range of P tell three to six are you aware of any kind of distinction between three and four in that in that policy no so under the current policy it talks about optimizing sites from from three to six so that's what we have done and I've obviously said to this committee before the fact that as officers we don't feel having a three or four would change the scheme or would would change our advice as we have optimized the site because we feel is unique at the very at the very bottom of the hill and therefore optimizing it would produce for us the same result I think the similar question in a way that I put to one of the residents that having looked at the daylight sunlight analysis both in the application documents and in your report it does seem that in terms of comparing this scheme with the scheme which already has planning consent the one to six south close appears to be similar if not the same 22 South close seems to be similar with a small reduction as does 20 South close as does 19 South close but 21 South closes is an area where there is a reduction and that is the the VSC is reduced from point three seven to point three three and the distribution from point seven six to point five one I mean I guess it's it's a question I mean you've looked at it in the report you know whether you feel that is a significant reduction or as the applicant just just stated this is something you might expect given the configuration of that particular room in question. Yes so in the report we obviously have set or to set site from from the Smith report that from 19 a to 22 South close that there are some of those properties that will experience reductions in one assessment but comply on the other assessments so therefore in balance it's both some properties we have just experienced reductions that fall just below the BRE guidance or something so in one instance we kind of say well because it's relatively close to the BRE it's still fine to be acceptable the particular one that you've already pointed out and the report is 21 South close so from the original application and there was an assumed layout and from the previous application from it from the second application we obviously there wasn't there was a detailed visit that went to the property of South close measured the room measured the layout and so I think that is that so the highest set out within the previous report on this one is the most accurate position and yes it does come out that there's a combination of factors that it is the proposed development and the existing design of the overhang does result in a considerable reduction to one room off 21 South close and we recognize that's and that is stated within that that is that is a harm I think kind of the position that we've landed on yes we recognize there are reduction in levels across a number of properties however there's only one room which is said considerable the rest of them are relatively minor reductions across the rest of them so therefore it was taking them as a whole and we do I think we consider to be sort of a moderate harm across all of them. Thank you for that I mean I think I mean I've had a look through obviously all of the viewpoints which have been provided and certainly from you know one looks at view one two three four five and six in comparison to the original consented scheme the differences are marginal I would say obviously view seven which we looked at again there is there's clearly an impact there and that was the view I think that we focused on at the last committee meeting and there were some concerns about that in terms of having an impact and on the development and you know specifically a visual impact and there is as we discussed there is an impact in daylight which is marginally greater for particularly for property number 21 south close in this current scheme as compared with the scheme which is consented so I think you know there continue to be some harms which are caused by this scheme there are I think significant benefits attached to this scheme beyond what we looked at last time I think that 16 affordable social rented units given that that's more social rented units than we had even in the original scheme is a significant benefit and I think that sorry 17 I beg your pardon well even more so then and I think that's important and I think that that benefit also helps to make the overall housing delivery a more significant benefit and of course we have got over a hundred housing units now which will go some way to towards our current housing targets I think it is also important that we have got in front of us a scheme that I think we can we can consider to be viable given the level of profit that is indicated and the potential shortfall that there is there is a route there for the developer to deliver it and there is of course the addition of the viable employment space so I think you know this scheme has the ability to unlock this site and take forward something which has been sitting in with the developer with the planning authority for a few years now and on the tall building issue I would acknowledge that this is not an area that we designated for tall buildings but the it is it is as you see the same or very similar to the the original scheme and in fact the tall building element is actually just it's a it's a quirk of the the topography where in a sense there's only one part of the building which because the the idea is that the top floor is extended that effectively becomes an eight story element so but I think it would be important that if members were to approve this scheme that we would acknowledge that this is very exceptional it is entirely to do with the topography of the site and it is specifically to deliver some additional affordable housing so I think my view on balance is that the benefits do outweigh the harms that are that are caused and I would be proposing to vote in favour of the recommendations yeah I was just going to say that but before we put that out for anyone to make comment we have got some legal advice as well I think it would be wrong if I didn't highlight some of the legal aspects of this you're aware of course that there is an appeal that will be taking place pretty soon actually this week proof will be going out what you may not be aware of and I don't I don't laud this to you I simply state it for what it is it's been made clear both by the opponent's barrister and more recently by the director of the developer that were this planning application before you approved tonight they would withdraw that appeal that is a material planning consideration for you sir it is also relevant that you have grounds for appeal which we are defending we've got a barrister lined up to defend those and we will rigorously seek to defend those they do include the issues around PTAIL which we talked about they do include some of these issues around the the massing of the trees are they absolutely rock watertight to mix two metaphors well I think I've picked up from our barrister they have qualities that we will be that will be presented they may or may not be needed depending on what happens here that's why it is a relevant consideration for you I'm not going to spend time over costs we do know that that appeal will almost certainly include a cost application almost regardless of how the inspector concludes on this one I think members have been right to do the comparison between this application and the approved application and I say that with one caveat and that one caveat is that approved application has 35% affordable housing however by the time we reached the application the subject of this appeal not only did the applicants say there is no viability for that level of affordable housing so did the consultants I think they were consultants that were provided who provided evidence to you as the council so it isn't just the applicants saying it it's your own advisor saying there was not a situation where there could be viability now we might be disappointed that that went from 35% to zero and we you know that that's a concern nevertheless what you've heard from the applicant tonight is look we understand the importance of affordable housing here we want to do something about it is it really viable even now quite possibly not but they're prepared to take that hit I think these are points that you do have to put into the mix when you reach that decision because this isn't easy we don't bring it easy things to strategic planning but it's important to weigh up all of these things including the appeal where we see that appeal going and the risks and the prospects of that I'm not going to underestimate the impact on 21 south coast I can see all of that but this is one of the things we always have to do in planning is to balance the harm against benefits and if we can make those benefits work we will what I would also say is in terms of those trees we will have a 106 agreement in relation to this we won't be able to determine exactly where those trees go because we can't really do that for the 106 but we can make priorities within that to maximize and maintain that screening as best we can particularly in that area around south coast I hope that's helpful. Thank you yes very helpful I've got Councillor Barnes and then Councillor Cowley. Can I just ask for some clarification about the affordable housing and the review mechanism is it correct that the review can't make the number go down but it could go up or could it make it go down. Yeah it's there to capture so it can go up so we've secured the minimum so that is the minimum vision that we're securing the review mechanisms are there to capture any uplift so we've got to yeah there's two stages we've got an early stage and a late stage to capture two different points. Yeah I don't think this one did but previous viability assessments often have a set of calculations which look at a five percent uplift in costs and a five percent downturn in values and vice versa the first one doesn't affect us because the number won't go down but obviously if land values if sale values go up by a margin then you know we would be in a position where there would be more funding available usually by the time the late stage review happens it's very difficult to put that actually as properties in the development so normally it would be a cash contribution but yes it can only from our perspective it can only go up yeah yeah. Councillor Cohen. Yeah the representative the company was saying that the housing association would deal with the social housing thing will that be set will that be regulated that be set out in some kind of a condition or will that be regulated so that we have will we have any control over the way that's done so that it does happen in a way that's that we're happy with. Yes Councillor so as I said the so the affordable units usually get sold to a an RP here usually have to be on our approved list or known to us so they know kind of the barnet requirements immediately and I say we secured social rent that is set out nationally what that rent level is and the 106 secures that a hundred percent of those nominations come from barnet regardless of at any point in perpetuity so it will maintain those on the barnet waiting this benefit from those properties. Are there any other questions? You were bound to get a comment and it's just a few words but it's still very big very ugly and very undesirable. Thank you for the comment I mean I think the point that was made is that we are there is a comparator with the existing consented scheme and yeah okay are there any other are there any other comments? Okay so shall we move to the vote just in doing that I would reiterate the the I guess the conclusion that that I've drawn from that is that we're still we're not saying that there isn't harm caused by these proposals but that in if we agree the recommendations we're doing so on the basis that the the benefits to the scheme including the affordable housing the level of housing the delivery and the employment space are outweighing those the harms that are that are that are caused by the development so if we would like to move to the vote on the recommendations those are contained in section two of the report which is to approve the scheme subject to effectively subject to section 106 agreement and the conditions in the report all those in favor please indicate one two three four five six in favor all those against please indicate two against so the decision is carried six votes to two thank you all very much for your attendance this evening I haven't been notified of any urgent items or any other business if anyone has any other items though so I would then declare the meeting closed thank you all very much thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

Good evening everyone. It's seven o'clock, so shall we kick off and welcome to the Strategic Planning Committee on the 14th of October. I'm Councillor Nigel Young and I chair the Strategic Planning Committee and thank you for attending this evening. I will ask members of the committee first to introduce themselves, followed by the planning officers, legal officers and governance. Shall we start with Councillor Gordon tonight? I'm Councillor Shree Gordon, Edgware Ward. I'm Richard Cornelius, Totridge and Woodside Ward. I'm Councillor Narges Narathira, Councillor of Scollindale South Ward. I'm Councillor Rishikesh Chakraborty representing West Hendon Ward. Councillor Richard Barnes representing Barnet Vale Ward. Thank you very much. I'll ask that everyone remain seated throughout the meeting, unless you are called to the table to address the committee. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in law or by the Council. By attending either in person or online you may be picked up on recordings. Council recordings are covered by our privacy notice which can be found at barnet.gov.uk. For each application, although there's only one application tonight, the planning officer will present the application. Each speaker will have three minutes to address the committee. The governance officer will inform you when there is one minute left. The committee will have the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers. Following discussion, the committee will determine the application and the chair will announce the committee decision. When you are called to speak, and obviously members of the committee who I think know this, please press the middle speaker icon to turn on the mic and ensure that after you finish speaking you press the microphone off to ensure there is no feedback. So if I move to the agenda for the meeting, first item is the minutes of the last meeting. Are we happy that I agree these minutes, held on the 16th of September? Apologies for absence. Being notified of one, Apology Councillor Eva Greenspan and we wish her well this evening. Declarations of members, other interests? I haven't been notified of any. Dispensations granted by the monitoring officer, I'm not aware of any. There is an addendum to the report, are we happy to accept the addendum? That's agreed. So if we move to the first substantive item which is INTEC House 49 Moxon Street and the planning officer is going to take us through this application. Thank you. A little bit of very quick context. The committee may recall that in July it heard an application on the site relating to a non-determination appeal. During those discussions we had informed the committee that we were discussing alternative options with the applicant in the background and in order to make the scheme deliver on site affordable units. This application is the result of those discussions and I will talk you through some of those discussions and what has come out of that. I know the committee are familiar with the site and the context. So we have the site in red, a mostly vacant industrial unit at the bottom of Moxon Street. Just some aerial views in red surrounded by a residential and employment at the bottom. Again some views, the site is where the red star is at the very bottom. And just some quick site images. It's an existing two three storey office, employment commercial building. Propose block plan. So during the discussions here we looked at a number of different options with the third scheme. So we have the consensus scheme down the left hand side here which was for 92 units which delivered 35% on site affordable housing. Then a part of the appeal scheme had an increase of 98 units but had no on site affordable. And so exploring options with the applicant we looked at a number of different options which included reducing the employment floor space. We looked at reconfiguring the existing layout, the existing massing. And we have also explored where additional massing could be accommodated within the building to help deliver more on site affordable. So that is the combination of those three elements that has resulted in the current scheme. So just summarising that, there's now an increase of units on site, 113. There's an additional storey and no taller overall. And what that has allowed us to achieve is the provision of 17 on site social rented units. So that equates to 15% affordable housing provision by habitable room and by unit. As I just explained, the result of that then means there's a reduced commercial floor space, so about half of that. The car parking remains the same. And then the subsequent play space, external and shared amenity has increased in line with that. There's also another comparison in comparing the affordable housing offers. So on the left hand side again was the consent scheme, so that comprised of 29 units in a 60/40 split. So that was 16 affordable rented units, 13 intermediate. The appeal scheme obviously had nothing and what we secured within the latest scheme is 17 social rented units. So I'm just flagging that up. So as I talked about, there are a number of different options which this current scheme is different from the previous one. So we talked about increased massings. We have identified three corners of the building where the building could accommodate increased massing. They are particularly along the two corners on the northern elevation and then the rear of the east elevation and I'll show you those now and the changes before and after. So in terms of the internal reconfiguration, as I said, we have reduced the level of employment space on site and reconfigured that. So we have been able to rejig the upper ground floor level, so we've got additional units at the front and to the side. And then on the upper floor levels, this is the mezzanine, so again, mostly internal configuration at this level, reducing the level of employment. Then at the third and fourth floor levels, then there's additional mass in this particular corner over two levels, as you can see by the orange. And then an additional story or additional mass in the very back of the site, as you can kind of see here. So elevation-wise, so how that looks, consent of the scheme is on the left-hand side, so here you can kind of see the additional mass in this particular corner and also then you can kind of see it protruding at the very back, so in here. How that looks on the rear elevation, so again, you can kind of see the green element has been extended along the top. And then from the south side, so again, what you'll see mostly on this side is just the extension to the top. And then the northern elevation from south close, you see it from this corner here, it's been infilled at two storeys and then the uppermost floor is here. So this is the element that, as I say, now constitutes the tall building element because you get eight storeys then at the very back of the site down this bit. So just again, I mean, you've essentially seen these, but these are just typical floor plans of the units spread out and then the communal floor space has been moved to the roof, so there's still some first floor level and then largely on the roof. Separation distances to the neighbourhood route is largely unchanged. I mean, this is a previous, I don't have an updated one, but as you can kind of see, what the latest scheme just infills, this area here and this area here, and so the distances between the buildings remain unchanged. Just to remind the committee of the tree position, as we discussed before, there are a number of trees to be removed along here, so there's a couple here and a couple beside the pumping station where the large majority of the trees are to be retained, protected. And just quickly summarising then the different viewpoint assessments, so this is kind of pathway up Moxon Street and you can't quite at this point, you kind of see there's the red of the existing and then there's an additional yellow line of the additional matching, you'll see it come more into play, but so you can kind of see it would slowly start to be visible at the very upper levels only, as you come closer to the site, and in this view mostly behind the trees, again a small element up here, from Snowbury Close, again you will largely see the additional matching from the rear, up on this corner, and from the London Loop, still largely un-visible, sitting behind here, and then from South Close, again the existing consented scheme in red, and then where the infill bit will be going in here, and then the additional top story would become much more visible here. So just to summarise, the key changes from the previous applications, again so there's no additional matching and reconfiguration to help deliver on-site affordable units, and this results in increased massing at the upper levels, reduced employment, a tall building element at the rear, and it's a largely secure 17th on-site affordable, which we have secured as 15% social rent. Needing on from obviously the committee's decision from July that there was obviously a level of harm from the cumulative scale of density, obviously from the increased massing, we recognise then it will have further harm than what you acknowledged or decided before, so both in terms of the scale and density, and also on the neighbour and amenity in terms of the daylight/sunlight. However, in the planning balance, officers have obviously kind of weighed up the benefits against the harms, and we consider that sniffing of weight should be given to the on-site affordable, which overall then concludes the scheme to be acceptable from an officer's recommendation. So the recommendation is for approval subject to the section 106 and conditions set out in the report. Just briefly in the addendum, so the addendum just updates a few matters, so one is just confirming or clarifying, A, on the affordable housing that it's social rent we're securing, and then we provide extra clarity on the loss of tree provisions, we have further stipulated that priority of the loss of trees or replanting should be in that area between South Close and the application site where those trees are proposed to be removed, and there are a couple of amendments to a couple of the conditions which just talk about an updated ecological report, so hopefully that explains the addendum, so nothing further to add. Thank you for that. We have three speakers on this item, two objectors and then someone speaking on behalf of the applicant. So if I could ask Darren Taylor down here if you could come to the middle desk. I think we all received your email earlier, and thank you for the paper copy. So you've got the middle icon with the sort of speaker, when you're ready start, maybe wait for Governor's Office to sit down and we'll give you three minutes and then we'll give you a one-minute warning when you've got one minute left. When you're ready just start. Evening. I represent a committee of 65 neighbours joined in objections to this enlarged application. At the last Strategic Planning Committee meeting the members rejected in principle the concurrent application over concerns including cumulative scale, density and impact on the neighbouring buildings, proximity to the Greenbelt, the Monk and Hadley conservation area and a lack of information relating to affordable housing. This application has not addressed any of those issues raised and further increased the height, massing and density, its impact on the Greenbelt and is even more ambiguous when it comes to the affordable homes element. The eighth floor has been greatly expanded and roof terrace and playground moved to essentially a ninth floor. I would also like to draw your attention to the A4 informative provided to members highlighting just some of the failings to meet the required legislation, policy, targets and guidelines, as well as the key visual impacts that have been deliberately excluded from the heritage, townscape and visual impact assessments in each application so far. The Barnet Residents Association have said, We have been scrutinising planning applications in the High Barnet area for more than 15 years and consider this to be one of the most ill-conceived that we have ever seen. A development of this scale should not even be entertained. Barnet Policy CS5 identifies tall buildings are not permitted on this site. Barnet Policy DM05 states that tall buildings outside of strategic locations will not be considered acceptable. Even Barnet Emerging Policy will acknowledge this location for tall building development. Why are these policies made if they can continually be ignored in favour of developer greed? The developer and planning officer finally agreed that this is a P-Towel 3 site but are still pushing a development density akin to Zone 2 in London, not a suburban leafy suburb of High Barnet. The London Plan states that the density of a P-Towel 3 site should be between 150 and 450 habitable rooms per hectare, depending on your definition of 'urban' and 'suburban'. This design density is between 3-fold and 10-fold the density designated for this location. We have two neighbours who work in property lending, development and valuation who have identified over 20 problems with the contradictory documents. The developers' viability assessment concludes the scheme cannot viably support the delivery of any affordable housing, whilst also saying it will be agreed during the determination phase. The Planning Statement says 'affordable homes percentage to be confirmed' but also 'allow for the provision of on-site affordable housing in principle'. It's unclear where the figure of 15% affordable homes has even come from, it's first mentioned within the officer's report. This application remains too ambiguous. We request a truly independent, expert review of the viability assessment to ensure objectivity and accuracy. If the developer cannot financially make the scheme work with or without the affordable homes element, they should either downsize the scheme or sell to a developer that can make it work. As we've said all along, a five-storey development would be agreeable by both the community and surroundings. Eight to nine storeys is nothing but absurd. Thank you. Thank you very much. If you press the button off and then if someone asks you a question you'll have to put it back on again I'm afraid. Has anyone got any questions that they'd like to ask? Councillor Barnes. Good evening. Can you tell me where you live and how you're personally going to be impacted? I know you're representing lots of people but just to give you a bit of personal background. Hi, I live at the bottom of South Close, number 21. With the lights and daylight assessments, we're probably going to be the most affected because the independent reports and our independent reports suggest that we're going to lose up to 65% of the light that we currently receive and we're going to be put into shadow for possibly six to seven months of the year. We're directly opposite where the trees are all being removed, so some of the tree screening is being kept but what we've also done, some of the documents show tree coverage, some of the documents say they're being removed. Again that's quite ambiguous, there is now in the officer's report saying that some of the trees might be planted, we've seen on the addendum just now that some trees will potentially be replanted along there, but opposite our house they're all being taken away and we're going to see eight storeys and there's going to be eight storeys of balconies looking directly into our property and into our bathrooms with no tree coverage and that tree coverage has been there for at least 70 years. So yeah we're at the bottom, me and Andy both live on South Close, on the lower part of South Close, we're greatly affected but we do represent the neighbourhood and it's about 65 other households. Councillor Cohen. Yeah I just wasn't quite sure what you're saying about affordable, this scheme would provide a certain number of social housing units which will amount to 15% of the total. Do you accept that and would that be, you accept that that would be a benefit to a community that would not be realised by the previous iteration of the scheme? Yeah we're for the affordable homes, we were against the very first application but we obviously failed in stopping that one, but that was an agreement that 35% affordable homes would be included and we completely disagree that the developer couldn't afford that or couldn't fulfil that obligation. 15% I think is a bit of a joke from the developer, I agree it's still better than the last application but I think the developers playing games quite clearly 15% is nowhere near the 50% that's supposed to be there or the 35% that previously agreed they're playing a game and I really hope that they don't just get to profiteer and one other point as well, the 15% affordable homes has not been in any of the documents in the application, it's only been in the officer's report, so looking through there's no indication, as I said the planning statement has contradictory points in there, not saying anything to do with 17 units or 15%, the financial viability assessment also doesn't have anything about 15 units or 17 units or 15%, the first we've seen that they will be aiming for 15% is in the planning officer's report because that's not indicated in any of the documents in the application. But it's now been offered by the developer, it's now been agreed with them if we were to go ahead. I accept that they will probably fall back on that in the future and they will probably come back and say they can't afford it. In the documents it does say that it will go through a process of review during the development and we can just foresee that they will probably say they can't afford it and nothing will get included and they will do a token insulting gesture of £30,000, £60,000, it's not even the cost of a quarter of a one-bed flat towards the community, so I don't agree with their assessments and we would prefer that a truly independent financial assessment is implemented because the last application, the documents were so unclear, with this application they're probably even more unclear, it's very difficult to actually decipher what's going on and clearly the planning office having discussions behind the scenes and putting that into the planning officer's report but that's not available to the general public, so the first we knew of the 15% is in the planning officer's report last week. Okay well we can follow those up with the developer and with the planning officer. You mentioned that potentially a five-storey development would be acceptable, I mean one of the things that is very apparent when you visit the site is the difference in level. Are you thinking five-storey sort of opposite your house but as it goes down the slope that quickly becomes two additional storeys, so if you could just clarify what you were saying then that would be really helpful. The existing building is a three-storey building but it's staggered over one storey, so opposite our house there's three storeys, slightly up the hill it's still three storeys, there is a step in the building and I think as a general consensus we would probably be happy with the five-storey building again if it was stepped up the slope it would still generally be hidden behind the trees, it would still poke a bit out the top of the trees but approximately four storeys would be hidden by the existing trees and what we do find difficult is a lot of the documents when they say it's going to be well hidden within the trees then there's other documents saying you'll have far reaching views over the green belt and you can't have both. It will be as you can see from the handout there's a view from King George Fields that we've mocked up that is fairly accurate using our sort of measuring methods but that view has been deliberately withheld from the townscape and the heritage which would be one of the most useful ones as well as the bottom of South Place which is where the most impact is going to be on the residential areas. So again that image has also been withheld from, well just not included in the townscape and the heritage assessments, impact assessments but that's been since the very first application we've highlighted it quite a few times that it would be really useful that the public can see exactly what impact this building is going to be doing and when we've sent this through to our neighbours and our community group and the wider neighbours everyone is generally shocked at the size and the impact which doesn't come across in the documents that are available on the application. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Okay thank you very much. We've got also Andy Shamash, yeah great. Same routine, you press the middle icon button and you'll have three minutes for my new start. Thank you and you'll get a one minute warning. Members as acknowledged in the officer's report this proposed scheme would result in significant harm to the surrounding neighbourhood including my family at 19A South Close. This harm mainly comes in the form of an unacceptable level of overlooking into our property as well as several others at the bottom of South Close. Units on the higher floors will be able to look directly into our bedrooms even with the existing tree screen and this already significant harm is made much worse by the proposed removal of several trees which currently play a vital role as a visual screen between South Close and the scheme without any certainty as to what level of replanting will take place. Additionally, as acknowledged in the report, the scheme has a significant impact on our levels of natural light. As has been pointed out by the Barnet Residence Association, the original consent of the 92 unit scheme was considerably flawed, informed by an incorrect retail rating, its height and massing are greatly out of character to the surrounding area. It did however at least make a contribution to the borough in its provision of 35% affordable housing. The developer's viability assessment, which has not been independently reviewed, contends that even with a reduced 15% affordable provision, the scheme falls short of viability. Although as a property finance professional myself, I noted the generous allowances within the figures of over 10 million developer profit and 2.5 million contingency. And if we are to believe this assessment, if the scheme is not viable even with the more than halved affordable provision, how is the developer going to be able to deliver it? The members should be aware of the well-publicised previous failures of this developer, notably in respect of the Parklet Place scheme in Kilburn, which collapsed with 26 million of debt in a more favourable economic environment. And is it not likely, or even obvious given their previous application, that if consent for this scheme is obtained, the developers will again plead poverty and look to submit a further scheme backed by yet another viability assessment, reducing the affordable provision again and maximising their profits at the expense of Barnet residents. My neighbours and I are not anti-development, but the solution to the apparent deliverability issue of the approved scheme is not to load more and more units onto an already overdeveloped scheme. There is potential on this site for a scheme, especially when considered with the neighbouring site of Fortune House, also owned by this developer. Our suggestion to the applicant is to look again at the whole site, preferably with meaningful local consultation, in order to produce a scheme which delivers valuable housing, minimising unnecessary harm to the local area. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have members of the committee got any questions? Just going back to your last comment, I'm just wondering what you mean by the developer putting forward an alternative scheme. I mean, this is their latest alternative of what they say is affordable from their point of view. So you think they could put forward something that's much more acceptable? We – the developer's also sort of – a separate scheme, Fortune House, that has received a sort of resolution to grant for 41 units, I believe, adjacent to this development. So our suggestion is that, you know, sort of, I guess, sympathetic to their viability concerns, but the solution is not to just increase massing, increase harm to the local environment. You know, look again at the whole scheme together with, you know, the adjacent site, sort of come up with a scheme, you know, in consultation with local residents that, you know, doesn't have the benefits but without the sort of significant harm that this scheme does. So you think that this scheme is making up for just having a smaller Fortune House next door, which presumably would have more impact on Snowbury Court next door to that? I mean, I think when you compare this with the existing consented scheme, what you've got is increased harm to the local area by the sort of increased massing, overlooking, loss of natural light, trees, et cetera. You think that's because the other one is smaller, because it's making up for – You know, what we're sort of saying is that when you're comparing it to the existing consented scheme, increased harm, less benefit, that's the sort of essential equation, isn't it? There's sort of, you know, if the original scheme was sort of – it's been acknowledged that that does cause harm to the local environment, and, you know, members judged with the 92 state scheme that the provision of 35% affordable, you know, on balance outweighed that harm. You know, what's happening with this application is there's increased harm and less sort of affordable benefit. To a large extent, we're looking at this compared to the first approved scheme, which is still, instead of being approved, whether or not they're able financially to build it or not. So to some extent, or to a large extent, we're looking at the increased harm that this will do over the first one, which, again, was very large and had an impact on you. So is the extra harm that this will do excessive? You know, how do you quantify the extra harm that this scheme will do? You know, what our sort of argument would be, the initial decision could be argued to have been a flawed decision. It was one of the sort of important points that we made. At the time, the site was considered a P-TEL 4, which I think was a big part of informing the original consent, and I think it's now acknowledged that that was not a correct designation. And also take that into account, you know, sort of amendments to an originally flawed scheme, you know, should be sort of seen in that light. But yes, our case sort of absolutely is that there is a significantly increased level of harm with this scheme in terms of views, in terms of our natural light, and clearly there's less benefit to the borough in the form of 15% affordable housing, which is significantly less than the original scheme. You mentioned the impact to your property on daylight and sunlight. I mean, the assessment I've looked at suggests that obviously there is a reduction, but that reduction largely speaking falls within guidelines of the BRE set. Are you familiar with that assessment, or are you sort of disagreeing with that assessment? I just kind of want to know. It's difficult to disagree with a professional assessment. Certainly, you know, perhaps my property is one of the bungalows on South Close, sort of acknowledge that my property is one of the least affected, but you know, it certainly was pointed out in the officer's report that some of the loss of natural light was, you know, sort of not within guidelines, and it seems to be that that's, you know, it always seems to be judged on the basis of on balance, but I think it's even sort of acknowledged in the officer's report, there is a significant issue on our properties, probably Darren's more than mine. Sure, yes, and that's mentioned in the officer's report, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. Is there any further questions for anyone? Thank you very much. Oh, I beg your pardon, Councillor Cornelius. Just one, if I may. Do you feel that, aesthetically, if one ignores all the sort of surveyor talk, et cetera, do you feel that the infill on the top floor actually has a bigger impact aesthetically than it may do physically, in that it becomes so much more slab-like? I sort of always come back to, and I know you're sort of comparing it with the existing consented scheme, but I know there was a site visit the other day, it's always amazing to me that an eight-storey scheme was sort of consented in the first place when you consider the surrounding area. I think it is out of character, and I think it is sort of inappropriate when you look at the general area of the neighbourhood, it certainly seems that first time round, with the 92-unit scheme, they got more than they could reasonably have expected, and it's therefore very difficult now to see them just trying to build on that great result that they got before, and sort of loading more and more units onto the scheme, I don't think it's something that should be accepted. But yes, I think your point is a valid one, that what we get with the aesthetic of the new scheme is that sort of slab-like effect, perhaps less than the slightly more graduated view of the consented scheme. Thank you very much. We're very pleased to present the scheme to you this evening. That reflects months of design work and consultation with your officers, as well as being better designed to meet local housing needs. The proposal delivers a high-quality development that balances community benefits with robust design. Members will be aware that there's next-stand permission on the site, the first application it's often referred to, that is no longer viable due to dramatic changes to the housing market. Very similar scheme was then brought forward earlier this year, which was refused, with the biggest concern amongst members being the level of affordable housing on site. We've listened carefully to that feedback. We have explored every avenue to make the scheme viable for on-site affordable housing, the result of which you see before you this evening, which delivers 15% affordable housing, all of which will be socially-rented homes. To provide this increase, we've increased the number of units on the site, but this is achieved by seeking to infill appropriate elements of the building. It is no higher than the originally approved scheme. The SATE scheme is also no closer to existing dwellings than the originally approved scheme, and your officers report SATE that they find the plans acceptable in townscape terms. It's also, and I really want to emphasise this point, because we've now got a scheme that is 100% socially-rented rather than 60% socially-rented on the first scheme, we now have one more social home than the approved scheme, so 17 socially-rented homes rather than 16. So the building will step down in height towards Moxon Street, with the largest part of the building being at the bottom of the site, ensuring it integrates smoothly with the surrounding townscape. To minimise the visual impact, china trees and landscaping will enhance the site. In line with sustainability objectives, the scheme will include solar panels, air source heat pumps and measures to achieve biodiversity net gain, well in excess of the 77-year-old city. A thorough transport assessment has been conducted, demonstrating a net decrease in vehicular transport compared to the current use. We have listened to concerns on daylight/sunlight through thorough, detailed testing of the surrounding units. In summary, this is a scheme of high quality and thoughtful design, and offering significant public benefits. It represents the regeneration of a brownfield site, providing much-needed housing, including on-site socially-rented homes and employment space in a sustainable, community-focused manner. By incorporating 17 socially-rented homes, Intech House is helping to deliver more homes with the greatest housing need. We are pleased the application is recommended for approval by our officers, and we hope you agree with this carefully considered development, and it can be agreed this evening. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, thank you very much. I have got Councillor Cornelius, Councillor Barnes and Councillor Farrier. Don't worry, I will come back for another round if there are. Councillor Cornelius. Thank you very much. Please excuse me if it is in the report, and I have missed this. The socially-rented housing that is going to be on this site, should the application go ahead, could you go into that in a little more detail, please? What do you mean by a social rent? Will that be the same as a Barnet Homes rent? Who are you thinking will manage the socially-rented property, and who will have the nomination rights to that property, please? So it will be a socially-rented home and market rent set in line with what is agreed with in the legal agreement, which is set by Barnet Council. I will look to your officer here, and I believe it is 60% of market rent, I believe that to be correct, you may want to just come back on that one, but it is not affordable rent, London Living rent, it is socially rent as defined by Barnet Council. One site provision will be transferred across to a housing association, that will be part of the section 106 agreement for that to be delivered, and then nomination rights will be for Barnet Council to determine who is in the greatest need on your housing register to occupy those units. Councillor Barnes. Thank you, there was some suggestion of linkage with the adjoining site, would you like to comment on that? Yeah, look I can completely understand why people are kind of linking the two, they are obviously two separate applications, and there are very good reasons for that, number one there is a different ownership structure on Fortune House in which the landowner is part of the development arm there, and this applicant is project managing the scheme, whereas on this site they purely own the site, and because there is an existing occupier with a longer lease, these two schemes will be brought forward in very different timescales. This one we want to get cracking on with straight away, hence why we are here with application number three, Fortune House will just take a little bit longer, and there is no connection here in terms of viability of the two, the level of development that has been set on the site is based on the individual assessments of each site and what we think can be safely contained in terms of capacity, in terms of townscape terms and design, and so there is no connection there at all in terms of viability or cross subsidy or anything like that. Yes, I want to address one of the first things you say, that this is better designed to meet local housing needs, and it is no higher than the approved scheme, now we have heard that one particular corner, although it may seem overall not higher, there is an infill, the top step back floor is coming forward so it will be higher, and better designed, I think it is not better designed, so I wondered if you could expand on your design comments. So I will just deal with a second point first, apologies if I wasn't clear, what I meant to say, if I didn't say it was better designed to meet local housing needs, i.e. previous scheme didn't have any affordable housing on site, this one delivers the affordable housing on site in terms of those 17 socially rented homes, so it is better designed to meet those local housing needs, apologies if that wasn't clear. Very fair challenge in terms of that height point, I suspect it is probably when you have only got three minutes to expand on all of the details there, so you have got that top story at the moment on the approved scheme and we have filled in around it, so it is no higher than that existing highest point, perhaps that would be the most accurate representation of the point I am trying to make there. Yes look, and I think to be fair your officer did highlight that there will be more visibility of the scheme within the street scene and it is of course unavoidable when you are delivering more units and increasing the density, you can't hide those units away, they will appear from certain locations, particularly when you are very close to them, you will see more of the building, but in terms of from a townscape perspective, when you are further step back, which is the purpose of the policy on tall buildings, is that it won't have a significant impact in terms of those views, it is only we are going to see it closer up on South Place. Thank you, what do you say to the residents' points about the loss of daylight and sunlight for certain properties on South Close, what is your, because obviously they are concerned about that, and that is a harm to them, what would you be doing about that? Yes and look, it is completely understandable in terms of daylight and sunlight impact that residents would be objection and raising concerns on that and we completely understand that. The point here is that there is, we are broadly within the guidelines in terms of what BRE sets for guidelines, it is not a requirement that you meet that and quite often there are schemes that exceed or fall below those guidelines, in this instance we are pretty much there on all of the existing dwellings, there is the one property in terms of 21 South Close that does have more of a significant impact and we are not trying to hide away from that. Why it probably looks a little bit worse than it does in terms of the figures is that one of the units, the ones that is most affected is the living room which is very long and thin, so it relies on daylight at the front of the room in terms of the building, and that bedroom as I understand it also has quite a big overhang as well so the area that it takes its light from is like that basically, so even a slight increase in height compared to what is there already has quite a significant impact on the numbers, so it is a case of if you do want to develop this site for any kind of increase in height on that site, inevitably there will be a significant impact on that one specific room because of its layout and the way that it is, and that is obviously something that you as members will have to balance in terms of the level of harm, both myself and the officer have come to the conclusion that that harm benefit should be in favour of a proven scheme, obviously you will have to make your own decision. How would you react if it was your bedroom? How would I react? That is a good question isn't it? Look I regularly write and support planning applications in my neighbourhood, I can understand why people would be disappointed with what is happening in that specific site, but at the end of the day as planning officers and planning committees you have to take everything in the round don't you, and something has got to happen on that site, something has to happen with it, it can't stay as it is, and as I said it is inevitable that there will be some impact on 21 South Close if this site is to be delivered. Are there any other questions? I've got a few questions. I mean on that issue, part of Councillor Cohen's question I think was that you are right having reviewed the daylight and sunlight analysis and what is in the officer report, there are some impacts around a number of the properties but the biggest impact is on that room in number 21 which I think the distribution in the consented scheme is something like 0.76 distribution of light and that drops down to 0.51 in the new scheme, or the scheme we are considering now I should say. I mean I think part of his question was is there anything that as a developer you can do to help that situation in terms of the resident there? I don't think there is if you want to deliver the amount of socially rented housing that we are looking to deliver here. The units on the upper floor are one of the few places that we think is sensible and appropriate to deliver the additional housing that enables this level of affordable housing that we are coming with you today. As I say, I don't think there is anything that can be done on that point. It is just an unfortunate quirk of the layout of that building and the way in which the windows interact with the scheme. Okay, thank you. So you talked a bit about the viability and it has been mentioned by a couple of the residents as well. In terms of the viability assessment, it looks like we obviously as you know that was one of the reasons that we refused this scheme last time as we were concerned about the viability effectively. So I am paraphrasing but effectively concerned about that. You have currently got a situation where your residual land value is about minus 3 million. But I did note that in that viability assessment you are looking at a 20% profit which is around about £10 million. So I suppose I am putting those two things together but I am interested to know how you are addressing the current deficit in the viability assessment. Is your question essentially how would the scheme deliver for what it takes to make the development? Exactly, yes. Sorry, could you put your microphone on? Sorry, apologies. As I say, it is a fair point. These are very challenging times for the development sector given the construction costs and the house prices decrease as we have seen in recent years and there are a lot of hard decisions that need to be made by developers. In this instance it is a case of the developer has to take a hit in terms of what their return is on the site compared to what they originally envisioned for the site. As a small and medium sized developer they need these schemes to be coming out of the ground and to be delivering them in order to fund further schemes. We are not talking about Barra or Avistra or Bellway or anything like that. They need these schemes to be coming out of the ground and therefore that is why these difficult decisions around deliverability are being made. Sort of to pick up on that point, how long have you been trying to develop this site for? Your client took over the ownership of this land and I would be interested to know how long it has been like it is. This was nothing to do with my client or ourselves but there was originally a permitted development rights application on this site for an Office to Resi conversion which was refused and I think that may have been by the original owner and the point at which that kind of reached a dead end is when they started to sell it. So I think our involvement, the application was, I think it was September 2022 was submitted so I think we had about nine months. I suspect the start of January 2022 was when we started on it if my memory is correct and obviously that was a very different time in terms of interest rates and construction costs and pre-inflation and the budget and I guess the one thing that I would highlight here in terms of what changed since that first application is that a couple of months after the application was submitted we had the budget that led to the very high increases in terms of interest rates and so we had a very different scenario by the time the application was finally approved in terms of the viability of the scheme. It has certainly been around two to three years plus in terms of the project. So one of the things that the Planning Officer mentioned in the report was around looking at options around the employment space and obviously you have decided to keep some employment space which I think obviously that is a positive thing. I mean how viable do you feel that employment space is in that location? Is that something that you are feeling that you will be able to sell or rent or whatever and make a good viable place for employment uses? Yeah I guess the one thing I would say is that to start off with is that development doesn't, viability and success doesn't rise and fall on the employment space within it. It's always been designed in mind with the fact that this isn't the place where you're going to get a big employer coming in. It's designed as small units that are almost kind of incubators for those start-ups that need some floor space and don't want to take you on the high street or can't afford somewhere particularly expensive. And in terms of the reason why the level it's set at is where it is is basically you could not convert that floor space into residential use. It wouldn't be suitable for that purpose. So it serves two purposes. One is it makes very good use of the floor space and helps with your kind of place making of the scheme. It gives you a very nice kind of entrance and sort of an active frontage in that location. And also you get a mixture of uses there as well so you can help support some local small businesses hopefully. Thank you. Has anyone got any further follow up questions? Okay thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Okay we now move to the part of the meeting where members of the committee can ask questions of the officers and make comments and discuss the application before we then move to a vote on the application. Has anyone got any comments or questions they would like to make? Councillor Barnes. Right I've got a few of the issues that were brought up previously. Hopefully maybe somebody else will ask some questions. So part of the development is now going to be eight storeys and that comes into the realm of being classified as a tall building and it's been suggested that this is not a location that should be having a tall building. Right but the policy is that you still have to assess it against the relevant criteria. So whilst it doesn't necessarily mean it's not appropriate there are circumstances which may allow for it to be appropriate or where the balancing exercise may find it appropriate. So in this particular instance we looked at different areas of the scheme which could accommodate additional massing and we felt that whilst the additional bit at the very back could accommodate it and become a tall building but it's no taller overall. So whilst it infills the tallest element still is the tallest element it's no taller than that and it's only because of the topography of the land that it becomes, that it's eight storeys and a tall building. So I mean the policy kind of sets out those particular locations from a townscape point of view where it is where we deem it more appropriate but doesn't say that it can't be considered altogether. I think that's the way we've carried out this exercise. Okay I think I get that. Can I ask about the trees as well? Specifically how many trees are being removed and I think it was suggested there might be replacements possible by some mechanism. So the tree position is exactly the same as each of the previous applications. There are two trees within that. So there's a large sort of more dense group of trees on the corner and then as you go down they become a little more scattered and a little bit more open. So there's a couple of trees from here and then around Popping Station in here. So that hasn't changed and it's very explicitly set out in the plans and in the report. So is that a total of four trees? Yeah and so the rest of them I said then this is the tree protection plan. So there are obviously kind of four street trees which we are covering the value for their loss and previously we have just kind of said and I think the consent scheme just says the money shall be spent by the green spaces team. So what we have tried to ensure and to beef up that provision and some of the comments that have been raised by the residents is and we have kind of indicative and spoken to the green spaces team is that can we can we use some of that money and specifically say and target it along this area as a priority first so they can use as much of that money to plant as much as they can in that area and that's what that's kind of we've expanded them with the in the addendum so in the event that permission is granted then green spaces are very clear how that money is to be spent and where it's to be spent and this is a we've been thinking I've been particularly spoken to the green spaces team here said to in principle they are happy to look at that. Now we can secure replanting or where the site and how many trees were that within this application because outside of the redline site so our green spaces team can only start looking at that is once permission is granted and the money is is secured so hopefully that kind of makes sense but sorry just on that point it wasn't us with the replanting address would that help in some way you see them would it disguise some of the massing was it the massing or the daylight sunlight day so the help of the screening it will by no means I think we're admitting that it will by no means screen or covered entirely and but some of the concerns raised ours that it will become it it will be a bit more visible than with a bit more visible without it so some so if we can get some replanting back in then at least that is some form of mitigation of the mass of the massing yeah what about the doesn't affect the daylight sunlight issue no of the houses I just want to check that right but that you can't guarantee I can't guarantee but we were obviously getting the money the money is guaranteed so the limits of that and and then but it's obviously kind of I can't tell you where exactly until green spaces go down and survey the land they kind of say well look we could get X number of trees here or X type of hedging here or this is how much money we could spend that's the that's the position I just can't the best case how much of the massing would it disguise or cover I can't I think it's difficult it's difficult to say it might be worth also looking at view number seven which I think has got the I mean it's difficult being this one which has got obviously got the existing the building set behind the existing tree coverage and obviously sobs that there you know there isn't it's kind of just above the tree line but some of those trees were saying would go but the ideal will be that we will be placing yeah I mean I think it go I mean some of them according to the notes some of them are going for a more a cultural reason so I assume there's a trees which are not I mean it's not very healthy so ideally we could replace the ones that are not very healthy with with new trees it's by no means that every tree along that that boundary is come is coming out so there there is still going to be an element of screening routine by those mature trees they say you may just get because there's only a few coming out in different in different places so you mean you've got to here but you can still see there's there's trees in this corner there are still a couple of trees in the bay so you're going to have pockets of maybe more visible intervening of the building and probably more likely in this bit here are there any other cancer partnership so I can't to go you put your which I noticed that we went through a couple of pictures that can I see them again yeah can you put your mic on yeah so that's the corner I just showed you here so the front so this corner here is that corner there this corner here only gets in filled at the very top see where it's so there's no so it's here and here so those are those are the three infilling elements I've got a couple of questions I just like to pick up as well just to the on the the Barnet residents Association said that their stated that CPZ permits would be would be available to to residents of the new development but my understanding is that they won't be just wanted to clarify that we would restrict the right to obtain permits thank you for that also there's been quite a lot of discussion around P tell three and for the report makes it very clear that this is P tell three but I'm also interested in policy each one of the London plan which talks about available you know about the development of available brownsfield sites and then puts a range of P tell three to six are you aware of any kind of distinction between three and four in that in that policy no so under the current policy it talks about optimizing sites from from three to six so that's what we have done and I've obviously said to this committee before the fact that as officers we don't feel having a three or four would change the scheme or would would change our advice as we have optimized the site because we feel is unique at the very at the very bottom of the hill and therefore optimizing it would produce for us the same result I think the similar question in a way that I put to one of the residents that having looked at the daylight sunlight analysis both in the application documents and in your report it does seem that in terms of comparing this scheme with the scheme which already has planning consent the one to six south close appears to be similar if not the same 22 South close seems to be similar with a small reduction as does 20 South close as does 19 South close but 21 South closes is an area where there is a reduction and that is the the VSC is reduced from point three seven to point three three and the distribution from point seven six to point five one I mean I guess it's it's a question I mean you've looked at it in the report you know whether you feel that is a significant reduction or as the applicant just just stated this is something you might expect given the configuration of that particular room in question. Yes so in the report we obviously have set or to set site from from the Smith report that from 19 a to 22 South close that there are some of those properties that will experience reductions in one assessment but comply on the other assessments so therefore in balance it's both some properties we have just experienced reductions that fall just below the BRE guidance or something so in one instance we kind of say well because it's relatively close to the BRE it's still fine to be acceptable the particular one that you've already pointed out and the report is 21 South close so from the original application and there was an assumed layout and from the previous application from it from the second application we obviously there wasn't there was a detailed visit that went to the property of South close measured the room measured the layout and so I think that is that so the highest set out within the previous report on this one is the most accurate position and yes it does come out that there's a combination of factors that it is the proposed development and the existing design of the overhang does result in a considerable reduction to one room off 21 South close and we recognize that's and that is stated within that that is that is a harm I think kind of the position that we've landed on yes we recognize there are reduction in levels across a number of properties however there's only one room which is said considerable the rest of them are relatively minor reductions across the rest of them so therefore it was taking them as a whole and we do I think we consider to be sort of a moderate harm across all of them. Thank you for that I mean I think I mean I've had a look through obviously all of the viewpoints which have been provided and certainly from you know one looks at view one two three four five and six in comparison to the original consented scheme the differences are marginal I would say obviously view seven which we looked at again there is there's clearly an impact there and that was the view I think that we focused on at the last committee meeting and there were some concerns about that in terms of having an impact and on the development and you know specifically a visual impact and there is as we discussed there is an impact in daylight which is marginally greater for particularly for property number 21 south close in this current scheme as compared with the scheme which is consented so I think you know there continue to be some harms which are caused by this scheme there are I think significant benefits attached to this scheme beyond what we looked at last time I think that 16 affordable social rented units given that that's more social rented units than we had even in the original scheme is a significant benefit and I think that sorry 17 I beg your pardon well even more so then and I think that's important and I think that that benefit also helps to make the overall housing delivery a more significant benefit and of course we have got over a hundred housing units now which will go some way to towards our current housing targets I think it is also important that we have got in front of us a scheme that I think we can we can consider to be viable given the level of profit that is indicated and the potential shortfall that there is there is a route there for the developer to deliver it and there is of course the addition of the viable employment space so I think you know this scheme has the ability to unlock this site and take forward something which has been sitting in with the developer with the planning authority for a few years now and on the tall building issue I would acknowledge that this is not an area that we designated for tall buildings but the it is it is as you see the same or very similar to the the original scheme and in fact the tall building element is actually just it's a it's a quirk of the the topography where in a sense there's only one part of the building which because the the idea is that the top floor is extended that effectively becomes an eight story element so but I think it would be important that if members were to approve this scheme that we would acknowledge that this is very exceptional it is entirely to do with the topography of the site and it is specifically to deliver some additional affordable housing so I think my view on balance is that the benefits do outweigh the harms that are that are caused and I would be proposing to vote in favour of the recommendations yeah I was just going to say that but before we put that out for anyone to make comment we have got some legal advice as well I think it would be wrong if I didn't highlight some of the legal aspects of this you're aware of course that there is an appeal that will be taking place pretty soon actually this week proof will be going out what you may not be aware of and I don't I don't laud this to you I simply state it for what it is it's been made clear both by the opponent's barrister and more recently by the director of the developer that were this planning application before you approved tonight they would withdraw that appeal that is a material planning consideration for you sir it is also relevant that you have grounds for appeal which we are defending we've got a barrister lined up to defend those and we will rigorously seek to defend those they do include the issues around PTAIL which we talked about they do include some of these issues around the the massing of the trees are they absolutely rock watertight to mix two metaphors well I think I've picked up from our barrister they have qualities that we will be that will be presented they may or may not be needed depending on what happens here that's why it is a relevant consideration for you I'm not going to spend time over costs we do know that that appeal will almost certainly include a cost application almost regardless of how the inspector concludes on this one I think members have been right to do the comparison between this application and the approved application and I say that with one caveat and that one caveat is that approved application has 35% affordable housing however by the time we reached the application the subject of this appeal not only did the applicants say there is no viability for that level of affordable housing so did the consultants I think they were consultants that were provided who provided evidence to you as the council so it isn't just the applicants saying it it's your own advisor saying there was not a situation where there could be viability now we might be disappointed that that went from 35% to zero and we you know that that's a concern nevertheless what you've heard from the applicant tonight is look we understand the importance of affordable housing here we want to do something about it is it really viable even now quite possibly not but they're prepared to take that hit I think these are points that you do have to put into the mix when you reach that decision because this isn't easy we don't bring it easy things to strategic planning but it's important to weigh up all of these things including the appeal where we see that appeal going and the risks and the prospects of that I'm not going to underestimate the impact on 21 south coast I can see all of that but this is one of the things we always have to do in planning is to balance the harm against benefits and if we can make those benefits work we will what I would also say is in terms of those trees we will have a 106 agreement in relation to this we won't be able to determine exactly where those trees go because we can't really do that for the 106 but we can make priorities within that to maximize and maintain that screening as best we can particularly in that area around south coast I hope that's helpful. Thank you yes very helpful I've got Councillor Barnes and then Councillor Cowley. Can I just ask for some clarification about the affordable housing and the review mechanism is it correct that the review can't make the number go down but it could go up or could it make it go down. Yeah it's there to capture so it can go up so we've secured the minimum so that is the minimum vision that we're securing the review mechanisms are there to capture any uplift so we've got to yeah there's two stages we've got an early stage and a late stage to capture two different points. Yeah I don't think this one did but previous viability assessments often have a set of calculations which look at a five percent uplift in costs and a five percent downturn in values and vice versa the first one doesn't affect us because the number won't go down but obviously if land values if sale values go up by a margin then you know we would be in a position where there would be more funding available usually by the time the late stage review happens it's very difficult to put that actually as properties in the development so normally it would be a cash contribution but yes it can only from our perspective it can only go up yeah yeah. Councillor Cohen. Yeah the representative the company was saying that the housing association would deal with the social housing thing will that be set will that be regulated that be set out in some kind of a condition or will that be regulated so that we have will we have any control over the way that's done so that it does happen in a way that's that we're happy with. Yes Councillor so as I said the so the affordable units usually get sold to a an RP here usually have to be on our approved list or known to us so they know kind of the barnet requirements immediately and I say we secured social rent that is set out nationally what that rent level is and the 106 secures that a hundred percent of those nominations come from barnet regardless of at any point in perpetuity so it will maintain those on the barnet waiting this benefit from those properties. Are there any other questions? You were bound to get a comment and it's just a few words but it's still very big very ugly and very undesirable. Thank you for the comment I mean I think the point that was made is that we are there is a comparator with the existing consented scheme and yeah okay are there any other are there any other comments? Okay so shall we move to the vote just in doing that I would reiterate the the I guess the conclusion that that I've drawn from that is that we're still we're not saying that there isn't harm caused by these proposals but that in if we agree the recommendations we're doing so on the basis that the the benefits to the scheme including the affordable housing the level of housing the delivery and the employment space are outweighing those the harms that are that are that are caused by the development so if we would like to move to the vote on the recommendations those are contained in section two of the report which is to approve the scheme subject to effectively subject to section 106 agreement and the conditions in the report all those in favor please indicate one two three four five six in favor all those against please indicate two against so the decision is carried six votes to two thank you all very much for your attendance this evening I haven't been notified of any urgent items or any other business if anyone has any other items though so I would then declare the meeting closed thank you all very much thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

Good evening everyone. It's seven o'clock, so shall we kick off and welcome to the Strategic Planning Committee on the 14th of October. I'm Councillor Nigel Young and I chair the Strategic Planning Committee and thank you for attending this evening. I will ask members of the committee first to introduce themselves, followed by the planning officers, legal officers and governance. Shall we start with Councillor Gordon tonight? I'm Councillor Shree Gordon, Edgware Ward. I'm Richard Cornelius, Totridge and Woodside Ward. I'm Councillor Narges Narathira, Councillor of Scollindale South Ward. I'm Councillor Rishikesh Chakraborty representing West Hendon Ward. Councillor Richard Barnes representing Barnet Vale Ward. Thank you very much. I'll ask that everyone remain seated throughout the meeting, unless you are called to the table to address the committee. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in law or by the Council. By attending either in person or online you may be picked up on recordings. Council recordings are covered by our privacy notice which can be found at barnet.gov.uk. For each application, although there's only one application tonight, the planning officer will present the application. Each speaker will have three minutes to address the committee. The governance officer will inform you when there is one minute left. The committee will have the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers. Following discussion, the committee will determine the application and the chair will announce the committee decision. When you are called to speak, and obviously members of the committee who I think know this, please press the middle speaker icon to turn on the mic and ensure that after you finish speaking you press the microphone off to ensure there is no feedback. So if I move to the agenda for the meeting, first item is the minutes of the last meeting. Are we happy that I agree these minutes, held on the 16th of September? Apologies for absence. Being notified of one, Apology Councillor Eva Greenspan and we wish her well this evening. Declarations of members, other interests? I haven't been notified of any. Dispensations granted by the monitoring officer, I'm not aware of any. There is an addendum to the report, are we happy to accept the addendum? That's agreed. So if we move to the first substantive item which is INTEC House 49 Moxon Street and the planning officer is going to take us through this application. Thank you. A little bit of very quick context. The committee may recall that in July it heard an application on the site relating to a non-determination appeal. During those discussions we had informed the committee that we were discussing alternative options with the applicant in the background and in order to make the scheme deliver on site affordable units. This application is the result of those discussions and I will talk you through some of those discussions and what has come out of that. I know the committee are familiar with the site and the context. So we have the site in red, a mostly vacant industrial unit at the bottom of Moxon Street. Just some aerial views in red surrounded by a residential and employment at the bottom. Again some views, the site is where the red star is at the very bottom. And just some quick site images. It's an existing two three storey office, employment commercial building. Propose block plan. So during the discussions here we looked at a number of different options with the third scheme. So we have the consensus scheme down the left hand side here which was for 92 units which delivered 35% on site affordable housing. Then a part of the appeal scheme had an increase of 98 units but had no on site affordable. And so exploring options with the applicant we looked at a number of different options which included reducing the employment floor space. We looked at reconfiguring the existing layout, the existing massing. And we have also explored where additional massing could be accommodated within the building to help deliver more on site affordable. So that is the combination of those three elements that has resulted in the current scheme. So just summarising that, there's now an increase of units on site, 113. There's an additional storey and no taller overall. And what that has allowed us to achieve is the provision of 17 on site social rented units. So that equates to 15% affordable housing provision by habitable room and by unit. As I just explained, the result of that then means there's a reduced commercial floor space, so about half of that. The car parking remains the same. And then the subsequent play space, external and shared amenity has increased in line with that. There's also another comparison in comparing the affordable housing offers. So on the left hand side again was the consent scheme, so that comprised of 29 units in a 60/40 split. So that was 16 affordable rented units, 13 intermediate. The appeal scheme obviously had nothing and what we secured within the latest scheme is 17 social rented units. So I'm just flagging that up. So as I talked about, there are a number of different options which this current scheme is different from the previous one. So we talked about increased massings. We have identified three corners of the building where the building could accommodate increased massing. They are particularly along the two corners on the northern elevation and then the rear of the east elevation and I'll show you those now and the changes before and after. So in terms of the internal reconfiguration, as I said, we have reduced the level of employment space on site and reconfigured that. So we have been able to rejig the upper ground floor level, so we've got additional units at the front and to the side. And then on the upper floor levels, this is the mezzanine, so again, mostly internal configuration at this level, reducing the level of employment. Then at the third and fourth floor levels, then there's additional mass in this particular corner over two levels, as you can see by the orange. And then an additional story or additional mass in the very back of the site, as you can kind of see here. So elevation-wise, so how that looks, consent of the scheme is on the left-hand side, so here you can kind of see the additional mass in this particular corner and also then you can kind of see it protruding at the very back, so in here. How that looks on the rear elevation, so again, you can kind of see the green element has been extended along the top. And then from the south side, so again, what you'll see mostly on this side is just the extension to the top. And then the northern elevation from south close, you see it from this corner here, it's been infilled at two storeys and then the uppermost floor is here. So this is the element that, as I say, now constitutes the tall building element because you get the stories then at the very back of the site down this bit. So just again, I mean, you've essentially seen these, these are just typical floor plans of the units spread out and then the communal floor space has been moved to the roof, so there's still some first floor level and then largely on the roof. Separation distance to the neighbouring route is largely unchanged. I mean, this is a previous, I don't have an updated one, but as you can kind of see, what the latest scheme just infills this area here and this area here and so the distances between the buildings remain unchanged. Just to remind the committee of the tree position, as we discussed before, there are a number of trees to be removed along here, so there's a couple here and a couple beside the pumping station where the large majority of the trees are to be retained, protected. And just quickly summarising then the different viewpoint assessments, so this is kind of pathway up Moxon Street and you can't quite at this point, you kind of see there's the red of the existing and then there's an additional yellow line of the additional massing, you'll see it come more into play. So you can kind of see it would slowly start to be visible at the very upper levels only, as you come closer to the site. In this view, mostly behind the trees, again a small element up here. From Snowbury Close, again you will largely see the additional massing from the rear, up in this corner. And from the London Loop, still largely invisible, still even behind here. And then from South Close, again the existing consent scheme in red, and then where the infill bit will be going in here, and then the additional top story will become much more visible here. So just to summarise, the key changes from the previous applications, again so there's no additional massing and reconfiguration to help deliver on-site affordable units, and this results in increased massing at the upper levels, reduced employment, a tall building element at the rear, they say largely secured 17 on-site affordable, which we have secured at 15% social rent. Needing on from obviously the committee's decision from July that there was obviously a level of harm from the cumulative scale of density, obviously from the increased massing, we recognise then it will have further harm than what you acknowledged or decided before, so both in terms of the scale of density and also on the neighbour and amenity, in terms of the daylight/sunlight. However, in the planning balance, officers have obviously kind of weighed up the benefits against the harms, and we consider that sniffing of weight should be given to the on-site affordable, which overall then concludes the scheme to be acceptable from an officer recommendation. So the recommendation is subject to, is for approval, subject to the section 106 and conditions set out in the report, just to briefly in the addendum, so the addendum just updates a few matters, so one is just confirming or clarifying, A, on the social, on the affordable housing that it's social rent we're securing, and then we provide extra clarity on the loss of tree provisions, we have further stipulated that priority of the loss of trees or replanting should be in that area between South Close and the application site where those trees are proposed to be removed. And there are a couple of amendments to a couple of the conditions which just talk about an updated ecological report, so I think hopefully that explains the addendum, so nothing further to add. Thank you for that. We have three speakers on this item, two objectors and then someone speaking on behalf of the applicant. So if I could ask Darren Taylor, if you could come to the middle desk. I think we all received your email earlier, and thank you for the paper copy. So you've got the middle icon with the sort of speaker, when you're ready to start. Maybe wait for Governor's office to sit down and we'll give you three minutes and then we'll give you a one-minute warning when you've got one minute left. Okay. When you're ready, just start. Good evening. I represent a committee of 65 neighbours joined in objection to this enlarged application. At the last Strategic Planning Committee meeting, the members rejected in principle the concurrent application over concerns including cumulative scale, density and impact on the neighbouring buildings, proximity to the Greenbelt, the Monk and Hadley Conservation Area and a lack of information relating to affordable housing. This application has not addressed any of those issues raised and further increased the height, massing and density, its impact on the Greenbelt and is even more ambiguous when it comes to the affordable homes element. The eighth floor has been greatly expanded and roof terrace and playground moved to essentially a ninth floor. I would also like to draw your attention to the A4 informative provided to members highlighting just some of the failings to meet the required legislation, policy, targets and guidelines. As well as the key visual impacts that have been deliberately excluded from the heritage, townscape and visual impact assessments in each application so far. The Barnet Residents Association have said, We have been scrutinising planning applications in the High Barnet area for more than 15 years and consider this to be one of the most ill-conceived that we have ever seen. A development of this scale should not even be entertained. Barnet Policy CS5 identifies tall buildings are not permitted on this site. Barnet Policy DM05 states that tall buildings outside of strategic locations will not be considered acceptable. Even Barnet Emerging Policy will acknowledge this location for tall building development. Why are these policies made if they can continually be ignored in favour of developer greed? The developer and planning officer have finally agreed that this is a P-3 site but are still pushing a development density akin to Zone 2 in London, not a suburban leafy suburb of High Barnet. The London Plan states that the density of a P-3 site should be between 150 and 450 habitable rooms per hectare. Depending on your definition of urban and suburban, this design density is between threefold and tenfold the density designated for this location. We have two neighbours who work in property lending development and valuation who have identified over 20 problems with the contradictory documents. The developer's viability assessment concludes, The scheme cannot viably support the delivery of any affordable housing, whilst also saying it would be agreed during the determination phase. The planning statement says affordable homes percentage to be confirmed but also allow for the provision of on-site affordable housing in principle. It's unclear where the figure of 15% affordable homes has even come from. It's first mentioned within the officer's report. This application remains too ambiguous. We request a truly independent, expert review of the viability assessment to ensure objectivity and accuracy. If the developer cannot financially make the scheme work with or without the affordable housing element, they should either downsize the scheme or sell to a developer that can make it work. As we've said all along, a five-storey development would be agreeable by both the community and surroundings. Eight to nine storeys is nothing but absurd. Thank you. Thank you very much. If you press the button off and then if someone asks you a question you'll have to put it back on again, I'm afraid. Has anyone got any questions they'd like to ask? Councillor Barnes. Good evening. Can you tell me where you live and how you're personally going to be impacted? I know you're representing lots of people, but just to give you a bit of personal background. Yeah, I live at the bottom of South Close, number 21. With the lights and daylight assessments we're probably going to be the most affected because the independent reports and our independent reports suggest that we're going to lose up to 65% of the light that we currently receive and we're going to be put into shadow for possibly six to seven months of the year. We're directly opposite where the trees are all being removed. So some of the tree screening is being kept, but what we've also done, some of the documents show tree coverage, some of the documents say they're being removed. Again, that's quite ambiguous. There is now in the officer's report saying that some of the trees might be planted. We've seen on the addendum just now that some trees will potentially be replanted along there, but opposite our house they're all being taken away and we're going to see eight storeys and there's going to be eight storeys of balconies looking directly into our property and into our bathrooms with no tree coverage and that tree coverage has been there for at least 70 years. So yeah, we're at the bottom. Me and Andy both live on South Close on the lower part of South Close. We're greatly affected, but we do represent the neighbourhood and it's about 65 other households. I wasn't quite sure what you were saying about affordable. This scheme would provide a certain number of social housing units, which will amount to 15% of the total. Do you accept that and would that be a benefit to a community that would not be realised by the previous iteration of the scheme? Yeah, we're for the affordable homes. We were against the very first application, but we obviously failed in stopping that one. But that was an agreement that 35% affordable homes would be included and we completely disagree that the developer couldn't afford that or couldn't fulfil that obligation. 15% I think is a bit of a joke from the developer. I agree it's still better than the last application, but I think the developers playing games quite clearly 15% is nowhere near the 50% that's supposed to be there or the 35% that previously agreed they're playing a game and I really hope that they don't just get to profiteer. One other point as well. The 15% affordable homes has not been in any of the documents in the application. It's only been in the officer's report. So looking through, there's no indication. As I said, the planning statement has contradictory points in there, not saying anything to do with 17 units or 15%. The financial viability assessment also doesn't have anything about 15 units or 17 units or 15%. The first we've seen that they will be aiming for 15% is in the planning officer's report, because that's not indicated in any of the documents in the application. But it's now been offered by the developer. It's now been agreed with them if we were to go ahead. Okay. You accept that? I accept that they will probably fall back on that in the future and they will probably come back and say they can't afford it in the documents. It does say that it will go through a process of review during the development and we can just foresee that they will probably say they can't afford it and nothing will get included. And they will do a token insulting gesture of £30,000, £60,000. It's not even the cost of a quarter of a one-bed flat towards the community. So I don't agree with their assessments and we would prefer that a truly independent financial assessment is implemented, because the last application, the documents were so unclear, with this application they're probably even more unclear. It's very difficult to actually decipher what's going on and clearly the planning officer is having discussions behind the scenes and putting that into the planning officer's report, but that's not available to the general public. So the first we knew of, the 15%, is in the planning officer's report last week. Okay. We can follow those up with the developer and the planning officer. You mentioned that potentially a five-storey development would be acceptable. I mean, one of the things that is very apparent when you visit the site is the difference in level. Are you thinking, you know, five-storey, sort of opposite your house and then, but, you know, as it goes down the slope that quickly becomes two additional storeys. So if you could just clarify what you were saying then that would be really helpful. Okay. The existing building is a three-storey building, but it's staggered over one storey. So opposite our house there's three storeys, slightly up the hill, it's still three storeys, there is a step in the building. I think as a general consensus we would probably be happy with a five-storey building. Again, if it was stepped up the slope, it would still generally be hidden behind the trees. It would still poke a bit out the top of the trees, but approximately four storeys would be hidden by the existing trees. And what we do find difficult is a lot of the documents when they say it's going to be well hidden within the trees, then there's other documents saying you'll have far-reaching views over the green belt. And you can't have both. It will be, as you can see from the handout there's a view from King George Fields that we've mocked up that is fairly accurate using our sort of measuring methods. But that view has been deliberately withheld from the townscape and the heritage, which would be one of the most useful ones, as well as the bottom of South Place which is where the most impact is going to be on the residential areas. So again that image has also been withheld from, well just not included in the townscape and the heritage assessments, impact assessments. But that's been, since the very first application we've highlighted it quite a few times, that it would be really useful that the public can see exactly what impact this building is going to be doing. And when we've sent this through to our neighbours and our community group and the wider neighbours, everyone is generally shocked at the size and the impact, which doesn't come across in the documents that are available on the application. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Okay, thank you very much. We've got also Andy Shamash. Yeah, great. Same routine, you press the middle icon button and you'll have three minutes for my new start. Thank you. And you'll get a one minute warning. Members, as acknowledged in the officer's report, this proposed scheme would result in significant harm to the surrounding neighbourhood, including my family at 19A South Close. This harm mainly comes in the form of an unacceptable level of overlooking into our property, as well as several others at the bottom of South Close. Units on the higher floors will be able to look directly into our bedrooms, even with the existing tree screen. And this already significant harm is made much worse by the proposed removal of several trees, which currently play a vital role as a visual screen between South Close and the scheme, without any certainty as to what level of replanting will take place. Additionally, as acknowledged in the report, the scheme has a significant impact on our levels of natural light. As has been pointed out by the Barnet Residence Association, the original consent of the 92 unit scheme was considerably flawed. Informed by an incorrect retail rating, its height and massing are greatly out of character to the surrounding area. It did, however, at least make a contribution to the borough in its provision of 35% affordable housing. The developers' viability assessment, which has not been independently reviewed, contends that even with a reduced 15% affordable provision, the scheme falls short of viability. Although as a property finance professional myself, I noted the generous allowances within the figures of over 10 million developer profit and 2.5 million contingency. And if we are to believe this assessment, if the scheme is not viable even with the more than halved affordable provision, how is the developer going to be able to deliver it? Members should be aware of the well-publicised previous failures of this developer, notably in respect of the Parklet Place scheme in Kilburn, which collapsed from £26 million of debt in a more favourable economic environment. And is it not likely or even obvious, given their previous application, that if consent for this scheme is obtained, the developers will again plead poverty and look to submit a further scheme backed by yet another viability assessment, reducing the affordable provision again and maximising their profits at the expense of Barnet residents. My neighbours and I are not anti-development, but the solution to the apparent deliverability issue of the approved scheme is not to load more and more units onto an already overdeveloped scheme. There is potential on this site for a scheme, especially when considered with the neighbouring site of Fortune House, also owned by this developer. Our suggestion to the applicant is to look again at the whole site, preferably with meaningful local consultation, in order to produce a scheme which delivers valuable housing, minimising unnecessary harm to the local area. Thank you very much. Have members of the committee got any questions? Just going back to your last comment, I'm just wondering what you mean by the developer putting forward an alternative scheme. I mean, this is their latest alternative of what they say is affordable from their point of view. So you think they could put forward something that's much more acceptable? We - the developer's also sort of - a separate scheme, Fortune House, that has received a sort of resolution to grant 41 units, I believe, adjacent to this development. So our suggestion is that, you know, sort of I guess sympathetic to their viability concerns, but the solution's not to just increase massing, increase harm to the local environment, you know, look again at the whole scheme together with the adjacent site, sort of come up with a scheme, you know, in consultation with local residents that, you know, doesn't - delivers the benefits, but without the sort of significant harm that this scheme does. So you think that this scheme is making up for just having a smaller Fortune House next door, which presumably would have more impact on Snowbury Court next door to that? I mean, I think when you compare this with the existing consented scheme, what you've got is increased harm to the local area by the sort of increased massing, overlooking loss of natural light, trees, etcetera. You think that's because the other one is smaller, because it's making up for... What we're sort of saying is that when you're comparing it to the existing consented scheme, increased harm, less benefit. That's the sort of essential, you know, equation, isn't it? There's sort of, you know, if the original scheme was sort of - it's been acknowledged that that does cause harm to the local environment, and you know, members judged with the 92 unit scheme that the provision of 35% affordable, you know, on balance outweighed that harm. You know, what's happening with this application is there's increased harm and less sort of affordable benefit. To a large extent, we're looking at this compared to the first approved scheme, which is still instead of being approved, whether or not they're able financially to build it or not. So to some extent, or to a large extent, we're looking at the increased harm that this will do over the first one, which again was very large and had an impact on you. So is the extra harm that this will do excessive? You know, how do you quantify the extra harm that this scheme will do? You know, what our sort of argument would be, the initial decision, you know, could be argued to have been a flawed decision. It was one of the sort of important points that we made. At the time, the site was considered a P-TEL 4, which I think was a big part of informing the original consent. And I think it's now acknowledged that that was not a correct designation. And you know, also take that into account, you know, sort of amendments to originally flawed scheme, you know, should be sort of seen in that light. But yes, our case sort of absolutely is that there is a significantly increased level of harm with this scheme in terms of, you know, views in terms of, you know, our natural light. And, you know, clearly, there's less benefit to the borrower in the form of, you know, 15% affordable housing, which is, you know, significantly less than the original scheme. You mentioned the impact to your property on daylight and sunlight. I mean, the assessment I've looked at suggests that obviously there is a reduction, but that reduction, largely speaking, falls within guidelines of the BRE set. Are you familiar with that assessment or are you sort of disagreeing with that assessment? I just kind of want to know. It's difficult to disagree with a professional assessment. Certainly, you know, perhaps my property is one of the bungalows on South Close, sort of acknowledge that my property is one of the least affected. But, you know, it certainly was pointed out in the officer's report that some of the loss of natural light was, you know, sort of not within guidelines. And it seems to be that that's, you know, it always seems to be judged on the basis of on balance. But I think it's even sort of acknowledged in the officer's report, there is a significant issue on our properties, probably Darren's more than mine. Sure. Yes. And that's mentioned in the officer's report. Yeah. OK. Is there any further questions for anyone? Thank you very much. Oh, I beg your pardon. Councillor Cornelius. Just one, if I may. Do you feel that, aesthetically, if one ignores all the sort of surveyor talk, et cetera, do you feel that the infill on the top floor actually has a has a bigger impact, aesthetically, than it may do physically, in that it becomes so much more slab-like? I sort of always come back to, and I know you're sort of comparing it with the existing consented scheme, but I know there was a site visit the other day. It's always amazing to me that an eight-storey scheme was sort of consented in the first place when you consider the surrounding area. I think it is out of character and I think it is sort of inappropriate when you look at the general area of the neighbourhood. It certainly seems that first time round, with the 92-unit scheme, they got more than they could reasonably have expected. And it's therefore sort of very difficult now to see them just trying to build on that great result that they got before and sort of loading more and more units onto the scheme. I don't think it's something that should be accepted. But yes, I think your point is a valid one that what we get with the aesthetic of the new scheme is that sort of slab-like effect, perhaps less than the more slightly more graduated view of the consented scheme. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. We now have Jamie Sullivan on behalf of, or the agent. Thank you. Your microphone is already on. Just when you start, we'll give you three minutes and you'll get a one-minute warning one minute before the end. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair, and good evening to everyone. We're very pleased to present the scheme to you this evening. That reflects months of design work and consultation with your officers, as well as being better designed to meet local housing needs. The proposal delivers a high quality development that balances community benefits with robust design. Members will be aware that there's next-hand permission on the site, the first application it's often referred to, that is no longer viable due to dramatic changes to the housing market. Very similar scheme was then brought forward earlier this year, which was refused, with the biggest concern amongst members being the level of affordable housing on-site. We've listened carefully to that feedback. We have explored every avenue to make the scheme viable for on-site affordable housing, the result of which you see before you this evening, which delivers 15% affordable housing, all of which will be socially rented homes. To provide this increase, we've increased the number of units on the site, but this is achieved by seeking to infill appropriate elements of the building. It is no higher than the originally approved scheme. Today's scheme is also no closer to existing dwellings than the originally approved scheme, and your officer's report states that they find the plans acceptable in townscape terms. It's also, and I really want to emphasise this point, because we've now got a scheme that is 100% socially rented, rather than 60% socially rented on the first scheme. We now have one more social home than the approved scheme, so 17 socially rented homes, rather than 16. So the building will step down in height towards Moxon Street, with the largest part of the building being at the bottom of the site, ensuring it integrates smoothly with the surrounding landscape. To minimise the visual impact, channel trees and landscaping will enhance the site. In line with sustainability objectives, the scheme will include solar panels, air source heat pumps, and measures to achieve biodiversity net gain, well in excess. A thorough transport assessment has been conducted, demonstrating a net decrease in vehicular transport compared to the current use. We have listened to concerns on daylight/sunlight through thorough detailed testing of the surrounding units. In summary, this is a scheme of high quality and thoughtful design, and offering significant public benefits. It represents the regeneration of a brownfield site, providing much needed housing, including on-site socially rented homes and employment space in a sustainable community-focused manner. By incorporating 17 socially rented homes, Intech House is helping to deliver more homes with the greatest housing need. We're pleased the application is recommended for approval by our officers. We hope you agree with this carefully considered development, and it can be agreed this evening. Please let me know if you've got any questions. Thank you, thank you very much. I've got Councillor Cornelius, Councillor Barnes and Councillor Farrier. Don't worry, I'll come back for another round if there are. Councillor Cornelius. Thank you very much. Please excuse me if it's in the report and I've missed this. The socially rented housing that's going to be on this site, should the application go ahead, could you go into that in a little more detail, please? What do you mean by a social rent? Will that be the same as a barnet homes rent? Who are you thinking will manage the socially rented property and who will have the nomination rights to that property, please? So it will be a socially rented home and market rent set in line with what's agreed with in the legal agreement which is set by Barnet Council. I will look to your officer here and I believe it's 60% of market rent. I believe that to be correct, you may want to just come back on that one, but it's not affordable rent, London living rent, it's socially rent as defined by Barnet Council. On-site provision will be transferred across to a housing association that will be part of the section 106 agreement for that to be delivered and then nomination rights will be for Barnet Council to determine who's in the greatest need on your housing register to occupy those units. Thank you. There was some suggestion of linkage with the adjoining site. Would you like to comment on that? Yeah. Look, I can completely understand why people are kind of linking the two. They're obviously two separate applications and there's very good reasons for that. Number one, there's a different ownership structure on Fortune House in which the landowner is part of the kind of the development arm there and this applicant is project managing the scheme whereas on this site, they purely own the site and because there's an existing occupier with a longer lease, these two schemes will be brought forward in very different timescales. This one, we want to get cracking on with straight away, hence why we're here with application number three. Fortune House will just take a little bit longer and there is no connection here in terms of viability of the two. The level of development that has been set on the site is based on the individual assessments of each site and what we think can be safely contained in terms of capacity, in terms of townscape terms and design and so there's no connection there at all in terms of viability or cross subsidy or anything like that. Yes, I want to address one of the first things you say is that this is better designed to meet local housing needs and then you said it's no higher than the approved scheme. Now we've heard that in one particular corner, although it may seem overall not higher, there's an infill, the top step back floor is coming forward so it will be higher and better designed, I think the name is in South Clerichfield, it's not better designed so I wondered if you could expand on your design comments. So I'll just deal with a second point first, apologies if I wasn't clear. What I meant to say, if I didn't say it was better designed to meet local housing needs, i.e. previous scheme didn't have any affordable housing on site, this one delivers the affordable housing on site in terms of those 17 socially rented homes so it's better designed to meet those local housing needs. Apologies if that wasn't clear. A very fair challenge in terms of that height point, I suspect it's probably one of those, when you've only got three minutes, you know, providing all of the details there. So you've got that top story at the moment on the approved scheme and we've filled in around it so it's no higher than that existing highest point, perhaps that would be the most accurate representation of the point that I'm trying to make there. Yes, look, and I think to be fair your officer did highlight that there will be more visibility of the scheme within the street scene and it is of course unavoidable when you're delivering more units and increasing the density, you can't hide those units away, they will appear from certain locations, particularly when you're very close to them, you'll see more of the building, but in terms of from a townscape perspective, when you further step back, which is the purpose of the policy on tall buildings, is that it won't have a significant impact in terms of those views, it's only we're going to see it closer up on South Close. Councillor Cohen. Thank you, what do you say to the residents points about the loss of daylight and sunlight for certain properties on South Close, what's your, because obviously they're concerned about that and that is a harm to them, what would you be doing about that? Yes, and look it's completely understandable in terms of the daylight and sunlight impact that residents would be objection and raising concerns on that and we completely understand that. The point here is that we're broadly within the guidelines in terms of what BRE sets for guidelines, it's not a requirement that you meet that and quite often there are schemes that exceed or fall below those guidelines. In this instance we're pretty much there on all of the existing dwellings, there's the one property in terms of 21 South Close that does have more of a significant impact and we're not trying to hide away from that. Why it probably looks a little bit worse than it does in terms of the figures is that one of the units, the ones that's most affected is the living room which is very kind of long and thin so it relies on daylight at the front of the room in terms of the building and that bedroom as I understand it also has quite a big overhang as well so the area that it takes its light from is like that basically so even a slight increase in height compared to what's there already has quite a significant impact on the numbers so it's a case of if you do want to develop this site for any kind of increase in height on that site inevitably there will be a significant impact on that one specific room because of its layout and the way that it is and that's obviously something that you as members will have to balance in terms of the level of harm both myself and the officer have come to the conclusion that that harm benefit should be in favour of a proven scheme. Obviously you will have to make your own decision. How would you react if it was your bedroom? How would I react? That's a good question isn't it? Look I regularly write and support planning applications in my neighbourhood. I can understand why people would be disappointed with what's happening in that specific site but at the end of the day as planning officers and planning committees you have to take everything in the round don't you and something's got to happen on that site, something has to happen with it, it can't stay as it is and as I said it's inevitable that there will be some impact on 21 South Close if this site is to be delivered. Are there any other questions? I've got a few questions. I mean on that issue, part of Councillor Cohen's question I think was I mean you're right having reviewed the daylight and sunlight analysis and what's in the officer report there are some impacts around a number of the properties but the biggest impact is on that room in number 21 which I think the distribution in the consented scheme is something like 0.76 distribution of light and that drops down to 0.51 in the new scheme or the scheme we're considering now I should say. I mean I think part of his question was is there anything that as a developer you can do to help that situation in terms of the resident there? I don't think there is if you want to deliver the amount of socially rented housing that we're looking to deliver here. The units on the upper floor are one of the few places that we think is sensible and appropriate to deliver the additional housing that enables this level of affordable housing that we're coming with you today. As I say I don't think that I don't think there is anything that can be done on that point it's just it's an unfortunate quirk of the layout of that building in a way in which the windows interact with that with the scheme. Okay thank you so you talked a bit about the the the viability and it's been mentioned by a couple of the residents as well in terms of the viability assessment it looks like we obviously as you know that was one of the reasons that we refused this scheme last time was we were concerned about the viability effectively so I'm paraphrasing but effectively concerned about that. You've currently got us a situation where your residual land value is about minus three million but I did note that you're looking at a trend in that viability assessment you're looking at a 20% profit which is around about ten million pounds so I suppose I'm putting those two things together but I mean how I'm interested to know how you're addressing the the the current deficit in the viability assessment. Sorry could you put your microphone on sorry apologies yeah look as I say it's it's a fair point these are very challenging times for that for that development sector given the construction costs and the house prices decreases we've seen in recent years and there's a lot of hard decisions that need to be made by developers in in this in this instance it's a case of the developer has to take a hit in terms of what their return is on on the site in terms compared to what they originally envisioned for the site and as a you know smaller medium size developer they need these schemes to be to be coming out of the ground and to be delivering them in order to fund further schemes you know they're not we're not talking about Barra or Avistra or Bellway or anything like that they need these schemes to be coming out of the ground and therefore that's that's why these difficult decisions around deliverability are being made. Sort of pick up on that point I mean so how how long have you been trying to develop this site for I mean you presumably took over the ownership or sorry your client took over the ownership of this land I'd be interested to know how long it's been like it is. So there was and this was nothing to do with our my clients or ourselves but there was originally a permitted development rights application on this site for an office to resi conversion which was refused and I think that may have been by the original owner and the point at which that kind of reached a dead end is when they started to sell it so I think our involvement the application was I think it was September 2022 was submitted so it I think we had about nine months I suspect the start of January 2022 was when we when we started on it if my memory is correct and obviously that was a very different time in terms of interest rates and construction costs and pre-inflation and the budget and I guess the one thing that I would I would highlight here in terms of what changed is that first application is a couple of months after the application was submitted we had the budget that led to the very high increases in terms of interest rates and so we had a very different scenario by the time the application was finally approved in terms of the viability of the scheme. It's certainly been around two to three years plus in terms of the project so one of the things that the planning officer mentioned in the report was around the looking at options around the employment space and obviously you've decided to keep some employment space which I think obviously that's a positive thing. I mean how viable do you feel that employment space is in that location is that something that you're feeling that you'll be able to to sell or rent or whatever and make a good viable place for employment uses? Yeah I guess the one thing I would say is that to start off with is that development doesn't, viability success doesn't rise and fall on the employment space within it. It's always been designed in mind with the fact that this isn't the place where you're going to get a big employer coming in. It's designed as small units that are almost kind of incubators for those startups that need some floor space and you know don't want to take it on the high street or you know can't afford somewhere particularly expensive and in terms of the reason why the level it's set at is where it is, is basically you could not convert that floor space into residential use. It wouldn't be suitable for that purpose so it serves two purposes. One is it makes very good use of the floor space and helps with your kind of place making of the scheme. It gives you a very nice kind of entrance and sort of an active frontage in that location and also you get a mixture of uses there as well so you can help support some local small businesses hopefully. Thank you. Has anyone got any further follow-up questions? Okay thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Okay we now move to the part of the meeting where members of the committee can ask questions of the officers and make comments and discuss the application before we then move to a vote on the application. Has anyone got any comments or questions they would like to make? Councillor Barnes. Right I've got a few of the issues that were brought up previously. Hopefully maybe somebody else will ask some questions. So part of the development is now going to be eight storeys and that comes into the realm of being classified as a tall building and it's been suggested that this is not a location that should be having a tall building. Correct but the policy is that you still have to assess it against the relevant criteria and so whilst it doesn't necessarily mean it's not appropriate there are circumstances which may allow for it to be appropriate or where the balancing exercise may find it appropriate. So in this particular instance we looked at different areas of the scheme which could accommodate additional massing and we felt that whilst the additional bit at the very back could accommodate it and become a tall building but it's no taller overall so whilst it infills the tallest element still is the tallest element it's no taller than that and it's only because of the topography of the land that it becomes that it's eight storeys and a tall building. So I mean the policy kind of sets out those particular locations from a townscape point of view where it is where we deem it more appropriate but doesn't say that it can't be considered altogether. I think that's the way we've carried out this exercise. Ok I think I get that. Can I ask about the trees as well? Specifically how many trees are being removed and I think it was suggested that there might be replacements possible by some mechanism. So the tree position is exactly the same as each of the previous applications. There are two trees within that so there's a large sort of more dense grouping of trees on the corner and then as you go down they become a little more scattered and a little bit more open so there's a couple of trees from here and then around Popping Station in here. That hasn't changed and it's very explicitly set out in the plans and in the report. So is that a total of four trees? Yeah and so the rest of them I said then this is the tree protection plan so there are obviously kind of four street trees which we are covering the value for their loss. Previously we have just kind of said and I think the consent scheme just says the money shall be spent by the green spaces team. So what we have tried to ensure and to beef up that provision in light of some of the comments that have been raised by the residents is we have kind of indicative and spoken to the green spaces team is that can we use some of that money and specifically say and target it along this area as a priority first so they can use as much of that money to plant as much as they can in that area and so that's what we've expanded on in the addendum. So in the event that permission is granted then green spaces are very clear how that money is to be spent and where it's to be spent. I've vindicately spoken to the green spaces team who are said to in principle they are happy to look at that. Now we can't secure replanting or where the site and how many trees within this application because outside of the red line site so our green spaces team can only start looking at that once permission is granted and the money is secured. So hopefully that kind of makes sense but. Sorry just on that point it wasn't us with the replanting address would that help in some way is it would it disguise some of the massing was it the massing or the daylight sunlight day so the help of the screening now it will by no means I think we're admitting that it will by no means screen or cover it entirely and but some of the concerns raised there's that it will become it it will be a bit more visible than with a bit more visible without it so something so if we can get some replanting back in then at least that aids some form of mitigation of the what the massing of the massing yeah and what about the it doesn't affect the daylight sunlight issue no of the houses no okay I just want to check that right but that you can't guarantee I can't guarantee but we we're obviously getting the money the money is guaranteed so the limits of that and and then but it's obviously kind of I can't tell you where exactly until green spaces go down and survey the land they kind of say well look we could get X number of trees here or X type hedging here or this is how much money we could spend that's the that's the best case how much of the massing would it disguise or cover I can't I think it's difficult it's difficult to say it might be worth also looking at view number seven which I think has got the I mean it's difficult being this one which has got obviously got the existing the the building set behind the existing tree coverage and obviously so that that there you know there isn't it's kind of just above the tree line but some of those trees were saying would go but the ideal will be that we will be replacing yeah I mean I think it would go I mean some of them according to the notes some of them are going for a more a cultural reason so I assume those are trees which are not I mean it's not very healthy so ideally we could replace the ones that are not very healthy with with new trees it's by no means that every tree along that boundary is come is coming out so there there is still going to be an element of screening routine by those mature trees they say you may just get because there's only a few coming out in different in different places so you mean you've got to here but you can still see there's there's trees in this corner there are still a couple of trees in the bay so you're going to have pockets of maybe more visible intervening of the building and probably more likely in this bit here are there any other cancer partners have to hold your sorry cancer go you put your a couple of pictures there can I see them again can you put your mic on yeah so that's the corner I've just showed you here so the front so this corner here is that corner there this corner here only gets in filled at the very top so there's no so it's here and here so those are those are the three infilling elements I've got a couple of questions I'd just like to pick up as well just to the on the the Barnet Residents Association said that their stated that CPZ permits would be would be available to to residents of the new development but my understanding is that they won't be just wanted to clarify that we would restrict the right to obtain permits thank you for that also there's been quite a lot of discussion around P tell three and four the report that makes it very clear that this is P tell three but I'm also interested in policy H one of the London plan which talks about available you know about the development of available brownsfield sites and then puts a range of P tell three to six are you aware of any kind of distinction between three and four in that in that policy no so under the current policy it talks about optimising sites from from three to six so that's what we have done and I've obviously said to this committee before the fact that as officers we don't feel having a three or four would change the scheme or would would change our advice as we have optimised the site because we feel it's unique at the very at the very bottom of the hill and therefore optimising it would produce for us the same result I think the similar question in a way that I put to one of the residents that having looked at the daylight sunlight analysis both in the application documents and in your report it does seem that in terms of comparing this scheme with the scheme which already has planning consent the one to six south close appears to be similar if not the same 22 south close seems to be similar with a small reduction as does 20 south close as does 19 south close but 21 south closes is an area where there is a reduction and that is the the VSC is reduced from point three seven to point three three and the distribution from point seven six to point five one I mean I guess it's it's a question I mean you've looked at it in the report you know whether you feel that is a significant reduction or as the applicant just just stated is something you might expect given the configuration of the room of that particular room in question yes answer so in the report we obviously have set or to set site from from the smith report that from 19 a to 22 south close that there are some of those properties that will experience reductions in one assessment but comply on the other assessments so therefore imbalances both some properties we have just um experienced reductions that fall just below the vre guidance of something so in one instance we kind of say well because it's relatively close to the vre it's still fine to be acceptable the particular one that you've already pointed out and in the report is 21 south close so from the original application and there was an assumed layout and from the previous application from the from the second application we obviously there wasn't there was a detailed visit that went to the property of south closed measured the room measured the layout and so I think that is that so the highest set out within the previous report and this one is the most accurate position and yes it does come out that there's a combination of factors that it is the proposed development and the existing design of the overhang does result in a considerable reduction to one room off 21 south close and we recognize that and that is stated within that that that is that is a harm I think kind of the position that we've landed on yes we recognize there are reduction in levels across a number of properties however there there's only one room which is said considerable the rest of them are relatively minor reductions across the rest of them so therefore it was taking them as a whole and we do I think we consider this to be sort of a moderate harm across all of them. Thank you for that I mean I think I mean I've had a look through obviously all of the viewpoints which have been provided and certainly from you know one looks at view one two three four five and six in comparison to the original consented scheme the differences are marginal I would say obviously view seven which we looked at again there is there's clearly an impact there and that was the view I think that we focused on at the last committee meeting and there were some concerns about that in terms of having having an impact and on the development and you know specifically a visual impact and there is as we discussed there is a there is an impact in daylight which is marginally greater for particularly for property number 21 south close in the in this current scheme as compared with the scheme which has consented so I think you know there continue to be some harms which are caused by by this scheme there are I think significant benefits attached to this scheme beyond what we looked at last time I think that 16 affordable social rented units given that that's more social rented units than we had even in the original scheme is a significant benefit and I think that sorry 17 I beg your pardon well even more so then and I think that's important and I think that that benefit also helps to make the overall housing delivery a more significant benefit and of course we have got over a hundred housing units now which will go some way to towards our current housing targets I think it is also important that we have got in front of us a scheme that I think we can we can consider to be viable given the level of profit that is indicated and the potential shortfall that there is there is a route there for the developer to deliver it and there is of course the addition of the viable employment space so I think you know this scheme has the ability to unlock this site and take forward something which has been sitting in with the developer with the planning authority for a few years now and on the tall building issue I would acknowledge that this is not an area that we designated for tall buildings but the it is it is as you see the same or very similar to the original scheme and in fact the tall building element is actually just it is a quirk of the topography where in a sense there is only one part of the building which because the idea is that the top floor is extended that effectively becomes an eight storey element but I think it would be important that if members were to approve this scheme that we would acknowledge that this is very exceptional it is entirely to do with the topography of the site and it is specifically to deliver some additional affordable affordable housing so I think my view on balance is that the benefits do outweigh the harms that are that are caused and and I would be proposing to vote in favor of the recommendations yeah I was just going to say that but before we put that out for anyone to make comment we have got some legal advice as well I think it'd be wrong if I didn't highlight some of the legal aspects of this you're aware of course that there is an appeal that will be taking place pretty soon actually this week Proust will be going out what you may not be aware of and I don't I don't laud this to you I simply state it for what it is it's been made clear both by the opponent's barrister and more recently by the director of the developer that were this planning application before you approved tonight they would withdraw that appeal that is a material planning consideration for you to consider it is also relevant that you have grounds for appeal which we are defending we've got a barrister lined up to defend those and we will rigorously seek to defend those they do include the issues around P-town which we talked about they do include some of these issues around the the massing of the trees are they absolutely a rock water type to mix two metaphors well I think I've picked up from our barrister they have qualities but we will be that will be presented they may or may not be needed depending on what happens here that's why it is a consideration for you I'm not going to spend time over costs we do know that that appeal will almost certainly the application almost regardless of how the inspector concludes on this one I think members have been right to do the comparison between this application and the approved application and I say that with one caveat and that one caveat is that approved application had 35% affordable housing however by the time we reached the application the subject of this appeal not only did the applicants say there is no viability for that level of affordable housing so did the consultants I think they were consultants that were provided who provided evidence to you as the council so it's it isn't just the applicant saying it it's your own advisor saying there was not a situation where there could be viability now we might be disappointed that that went from 35% to zero and we you know that that's a concern but nevertheless what you've heard from the applicant tonight is look we understand the importance of affordable housing here we want to do something about it is it really viable even now quite possibly not but they're prepared to take that hit I think these are points that you do have to put into the mix when you reach that decision because this isn't easy we don't bring it easy things to strategic planning party but it's important to weigh up all of these things including the appeal where we see that appeal going and the risks and the prospects of that I'm not going to underestimate the impact on 21 south coast I can see all of that but this is one of the things we always have to do in planning is to balance the harm against benefits and if we can make those benefits work we will what I would also say is in terms of those trees we will have a 1 0 6 agreement in relation to this we won't be able to determine exactly where those trees go because we can't really do that for the 1 0 6 but we can make priorities within that to maximize and maintain that screening as best we can particularly in that area around south coast I hope that's helpful thank you yes no very helpful I've got Councillor Barnes and then Councillor Cohen can I just ask for some clarification about the affordable housing and the review mechanism is it correct that the review can't make the number go down but it could go up or could it make it go up yeah it's there to capture so it can go up so we've secured the minimum so that is the minimum vision that we're securing the review mechanisms are there to capture any uplift so we've got to yeah there's two stages we've got an early stage and a late stage to capture two different points yeah I think the I don't think this one did but previous viability assessments often have a set of calculations which look at a five percent uplift in costs and a five percent downturn in values and vice versa the first one doesn't affect us because the number won't go down but obviously if land values if sale values go up by some by a margin then you know we would be in a position where there would be more funding available usually by the time the late stage review happens it's very difficult to put that actually as properties in the development so normally it would be a cash contribution but yes it can only from our perspective it can only go up yeah yeah Councillor yeah the representative the company was saying that the housing association would deal with the social housing thing will that be set will that be regulated that be set out in some kind of a condition or will that be regulated so that we have will we have any control over the way that's done so that it does happen in a way that that we're happy with yes Councillor so as I said they so the affordable units usually get sold to a an RP here you usually have to be on our approved list or or known to us so they know kind of the barnet requirements immediately and I say we secured social rent that is set out nationally what that rent level is and the 106 secures that a hundred percent of those nominations come from barnet regardless of at any point in perpetuity so it will maintain those on the barnet waiting this benefit from those properties are there any other questions comment and it's just a few words but it's still very big very ugly and very undesirable thank you for for for the comment I mean I think the point that was made is that we are there is a comparator with the existing consented scheme and yeah okay are there any other are there any other comments okay so shall we move to the vote just in doing that I would reiterate the I guess the the conclusion that that I've drawn from that is that we're still we're not saying that there isn't harm caused by these proposals but that in if we agree the recommendations we're doing so on the basis that the the benefits to the scheme including the affordable housing level of housing the delivery and the employment space are outweighing those the harms that are that are that are caused by the development so if we would like to move to the vote on the recommendations those are contained in section two of the report which is to approve the scheme subject to effectively subject to section one of six agreement and the conditions in the report all those in favor please indicate one two three four five six in favor all those against please indicate two against so the decision is carried six votes to two thank you all very much for your attendance this evening I haven't been notified of any urgent items or any other business if anyone has any other items so I would then declare the meeting closed thank you all very much thank you [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

Good evening everyone. It's seven o'clock, so shall we kick off and welcome to the Strategic Planning Committee on the 14th of October. I'm Councillor Nigel Young and I chair the Strategic Planning Committee and thank you for attending this evening. I will ask members of the committee first to introduce themselves, followed by the planning officers, legal officers and governance. Shall we start with Councillor Gordon tonight? I'm Councillor Shree Gordon, Edgware Ward. I'm Richard Cornelius, Totridge and Woodside Ward. I'm Councillor Narges Narathira, Councillor of Scollindale South Ward. I'm Councillor Rishikesh Chakraborty representing West Hendon Ward. Councillor Richard Barnes representing Barnet Vale Ward. Thank you very much. I'll ask that everyone remain seated throughout the meeting, unless you are called to the table to address the committee. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in law or by the Council. By attending either in person or online you may be picked up on recordings. Council recordings are covered by our privacy notice which can be found at barnet.gov.uk. For each application, although there's only one application tonight, the planning officer will present the application. Each speaker will have three minutes to address the committee. The governance officer will inform you when there is one minute left. The committee will have the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers. Following discussion, the committee will determine the application and the chair will announce the committee decision. When you are called to speak, and obviously members of the committee who I think know this, please press the middle speaker icon to turn on the mic and ensure that after you finish speaking you press the microphone off to ensure there is no feedback. So if I move to the agenda for the meeting, first item is the minutes of the last meeting. Are we happy that I agree these minutes, held on the 16th of September? Apologies for absence. Being notified of one, Apology Councillor Eva Greenspan and we wish her well this evening. Declarations of members, other interests? I haven't been notified of any. Dispensations granted by the monitoring officer, I'm not aware of any. There is an addendum to the report, are we happy to accept the addendum? That's agreed. So if we move to the first substantive item which is INTEC House 49 Moxon Street and the planning officer is going to take us through this application. Thank you. A little bit of very quick context. The committee may recall that in July it heard an application on the site relating to a non-determination appeal. During those discussions we had informed the committee that we were discussing alternative options with the applicant in the background and in order to make the scheme deliver on site affordable units. This application is the result of those discussions and I will talk you through some of those discussions and what has come out of that. I know the committee are familiar with the site and the context. So we have the site in red, a mostly vacant industrial unit at the bottom of Moxon Street. Just some aerial views in red surrounded by a residential and employment at the bottom. Again some views, the site is where the red star is at the very bottom. And just some quick site images. It's an existing two three storey office, employment commercial building. Propose block plan. So during the discussions here we looked at a number of different options with the third scheme. So we have the consensus scheme down the left hand side here which was for 92 units which delivered 35% on site affordable housing. Then a part of the appeal scheme had an increase of 98 units but had no on site affordable. And so exploring options with the applicant we looked at a number of different options which included reducing the employment floor space. We looked at reconfiguring the existing layout, the existing massing. And we have also explored where additional massing could be accommodated within the building to help deliver more on site affordable. So that is the combination of those three elements that has resulted in the current scheme. So just summarising that, there's now an increase of units on site, 113. There's an additional storey and no taller overall. And what that has allowed us to achieve is the provision of 17 on site social rented units. So that equates to 15% affordable housing provision by habitable room and by unit. As I just explained, the result of that then means there's a reduced commercial floor space, so about half of that. The car parking remains the same. And then the subsequent play space, external and shared amenity has increased in line with that. There's also another comparison in comparing the affordable housing offers. So on the left hand side again was the consent scheme, so that comprised of 29 units in a 60/40 split. So that was 16 affordable rented units, 13 intermediate. The appeal scheme obviously had nothing and what we secured within the latest scheme is 17 social rented units. So I'm just flagging that up. So as I talked about, there are a number of different options which this current scheme is different from the previous one. So we talked about increased massings. We have identified three corners of the building where the building could accommodate increased massing. They are particularly along the two corners on the northern elevation and then the rear of the east elevation and I'll show you those now and the changes before and after. So in terms of the internal reconfiguration, as I said, we have reduced the level of employment space on site and reconfigured that. So we have been able to rejig the upper ground floor level, so we've got additional units at the front and to the side. And then on the upper floor levels, this is the mezzanine, so again, mostly internal configuration at this level, reducing the level of employment. Then at the third and fourth floor levels, then there's additional mass in this particular corner over two levels, as you can see by the orange. And then an additional story or additional mass in the very back of the site, as you can kind of see here. So elevation-wise, so how that looks, consent of the scheme is on the left-hand side, so here you can kind of see the additional mass in this particular corner and also then you can kind of see it protruding at the very back, so in here. How that looks on the rear elevation, so again, you can kind of see the green element has been extended along the top. And then from the south side, so again, what you'll see mostly on this side is just the extension to the top. And then the northern elevation from south close, you see it from this corner here, it's been infilled at two storeys and then the uppermost floor is here. So this is the element that, as I say, now constitutes the tall building element because you get eight storeys then at the very back of the site down this bit. So just again, I mean, you've essentially seen these, but these are just typical floor plans of the units spread out and then the communal floor space has been moved to the roof, so there's still some first floor level and then largely on the roof. Separation distances to the neighbourhood route is largely unchanged. I mean, this is a previous, I don't have an updated one, but as you can kind of see, what the latest scheme just infills, this area here and this area here, and so the distances between the buildings remain unchanged. Just to remind the committee of the tree position, as we discussed before, there are a number of trees to be removed along here, so there's a couple here and a couple beside the pumping station where the large majority of the trees are to be retained, protected. And just quickly summarising then the different viewpoint assessments, so this is kind of pathway up Moxon Street and you can't quite at this point, you kind of see there's the red of the existing and then there's an additional yellow line of the additional matching, you'll see it come more into play, but so you can kind of see it would slowly start to be visible at the very upper levels only, as you come closer to the site, and in this view mostly behind the trees, again a small element up here, from Snowbury Close, again you will largely see the additional matching from the rear, up on this corner, and from the London Loop, still largely un-visible, sitting behind here, and then from South Close, again the existing consented scheme in red, and then where the infill bit will be going in here, and then the additional top story would become much more visible here. So just to summarise, the key changes from the previous applications, again so there's no additional matching and reconfiguration to help deliver on-site affordable units, and this results in increased massing at the upper levels, reduced employment, a tall building element at the rear, and it's a largely secure 17th on-site affordable, which we have secured as 15% social rent. Needing on from obviously the committee's decision from July that there was obviously a level of harm from the cumulative scale of density, obviously from the increased massing, we recognise then it will have further harm than what you acknowledged or decided before, so both in terms of the scale and density, and also on the neighbour and amenity in terms of the daylight/sunlight. However, in the planning balance, officers have obviously kind of weighed up the benefits against the harms, and we consider that sniffing of weight should be given to the on-site affordable, which overall then concludes the scheme to be acceptable from an officer's recommendation. So the recommendation is for approval subject to the section 106 and conditions set out in the report. Just briefly in the addendum, so the addendum just updates a few matters, so one is just confirming or clarifying, A, on the affordable housing that it's social rent we're securing, and then we provide extra clarity on the loss of tree provisions, we have further stipulated that priority of the loss of trees or replanting should be in that area between South Close and the application site where those trees are proposed to be removed, and there are a couple of amendments to a couple of the conditions which just talk about an updated ecological report, so hopefully that explains the addendum, so nothing further to add. Thank you for that. We have three speakers on this item, two objectors and then someone speaking on behalf of the applicant. So if I could ask Darren Taylor down here if you could come to the middle desk. I think we all received your email earlier, and thank you for the paper copy. So you've got the middle icon with the sort of speaker, when you're ready start, maybe wait for Governor's Office to sit down and we'll give you three minutes and then we'll give you a one-minute warning when you've got one minute left. When you're ready just start. Evening. I represent a committee of 65 neighbours joined in objections to this enlarged application. At the last Strategic Planning Committee meeting the members rejected in principle the concurrent application over concerns including cumulative scale, density and impact on the neighbouring buildings, proximity to the Greenbelt, the Monk and Hadley conservation area and a lack of information relating to affordable housing. This application has not addressed any of those issues raised and further increased the height, massing and density, its impact on the Greenbelt and is even more ambiguous when it comes to the affordable homes element. The eighth floor has been greatly expanded and roof terrace and playground moved to essentially a ninth floor. I would also like to draw your attention to the A4 informative provided to members highlighting just some of the failings to meet the required legislation, policy, targets and guidelines, as well as the key visual impacts that have been deliberately excluded from the heritage, townscape and visual impact assessments in each application so far. The Barnet Residents Association have said, We have been scrutinising planning applications in the High Barnet area for more than 15 years and consider this to be one of the most ill-conceived that we have ever seen. A development of this scale should not even be entertained. Barnet Policy CS5 identifies tall buildings are not permitted on this site. Barnet Policy DM05 states that tall buildings outside of strategic locations will not be considered acceptable. Even Barnet Emerging Policy will acknowledge this location for tall building development. Why are these policies made if they can continually be ignored in favour of developer greed? The developer and planning officer finally agreed that this is a P-Towel 3 site but are still pushing a development density akin to Zone 2 in London, not a suburban leafy suburb of High Barnet. The London Plan states that the density of a P-Towel 3 site should be between 150 and 450 habitable rooms per hectare, depending on your definition of 'urban' and 'suburban'. This design density is between 3-fold and 10-fold the density designated for this location. We have two neighbours who work in property lending, development and valuation who have identified over 20 problems with the contradictory documents. The developers' viability assessment concludes the scheme cannot viably support the delivery of any affordable housing, whilst also saying it will be agreed during the determination phase. The Planning Statement says 'affordable homes percentage to be confirmed' but also 'allow for the provision of on-site affordable housing in principle'. It's unclear where the figure of 15% affordable homes has even come from, it's first mentioned within the officer's report. This application remains too ambiguous. We request a truly independent, expert review of the viability assessment to ensure objectivity and accuracy. If the developer cannot financially make the scheme work with or without the affordable homes element, they should either downsize the scheme or sell to a developer that can make it work. As we've said all along, a five-storey development would be agreeable by both the community and surroundings. Eight to nine storeys is nothing but absurd. Thank you. Thank you very much. If you press the button off and then if someone asks you a question you'll have to put it back on again I'm afraid. Has anyone got any questions that they'd like to ask? Councillor Barnes. Good evening. Can you tell me where you live and how you're personally going to be impacted? I know you're representing lots of people but just to give you a bit of personal background. Hi, I live at the bottom of South Close, number 21. With the lights and daylight assessments, we're probably going to be the most affected because the independent reports and our independent reports suggest that we're going to lose up to 65% of the light that we currently receive and we're going to be put into shadow for possibly six to seven months of the year. We're directly opposite where the trees are all being removed, so some of the tree screening is being kept but what we've also done, some of the documents show tree coverage, some of the documents say they're being removed. Again that's quite ambiguous, there is now in the officer's report saying that some of the trees might be planted, we've seen on the addendum just now that some trees will potentially be replanted along there, but opposite our house they're all being taken away and we're going to see eight storeys and there's going to be eight storeys of balconies looking directly into our property and into our bathrooms with no tree coverage and that tree coverage has been there for at least 70 years. So yeah we're at the bottom, me and Andy both live on South Close, on the lower part of South Close, we're greatly affected but we do represent the neighbourhood and it's about 65 other households. Councillor Cohen. Yeah I just wasn't quite sure what you're saying about affordable, this scheme would provide a certain number of social housing units which will amount to 15% of the total. Do you accept that and would that be, you accept that that would be a benefit to a community that would not be realised by the previous iteration of the scheme? Yeah we're for the affordable homes, we were against the very first application but we obviously failed in stopping that one, but that was an agreement that 35% affordable homes would be included and we completely disagree that the developer couldn't afford that or couldn't fulfil that obligation. 15% I think is a bit of a joke from the developer, I agree it's still better than the last application but I think the developers playing games quite clearly 15% is nowhere near the 50% that's supposed to be there or the 35% that previously agreed they're playing a game and I really hope that they don't just get to profiteer and one other point as well, the 15% affordable homes has not been in any of the documents in the application, it's only been in the officer's report, so looking through there's no indication, as I said the planning statement has contradictory points in there, not saying anything to do with 17 units or 15%, the financial viability assessment also doesn't have anything about 15 units or 17 units or 15%, the first we've seen that they will be aiming for 15% is in the planning officer's report because that's not indicated in any of the documents in the application. But it's now been offered by the developer, it's now been agreed with them if we were to go ahead. I accept that they will probably fall back on that in the future and they will probably come back and say they can't afford it. In the documents it does say that it will go through a process of review during the development and we can just foresee that they will probably say they can't afford it and nothing will get included and they will do a token insulting gesture of £30,000, £60,000, it's not even the cost of a quarter of a one-bed flat towards the community, so I don't agree with their assessments and we would prefer that a truly independent financial assessment is implemented because the last application, the documents were so unclear, with this application they're probably even more unclear, it's very difficult to actually decipher what's going on and clearly the planning office having discussions behind the scenes and putting that into the planning officer's report but that's not available to the general public, so the first we knew of the 15% is in the planning officer's report last week. Okay well we can follow those up with the developer and with the planning officer. You mentioned that potentially a five-storey development would be acceptable, I mean one of the things that is very apparent when you visit the site is the difference in level. Are you thinking five-storey sort of opposite your house but as it goes down the slope that quickly becomes two additional storeys, so if you could just clarify what you were saying then that would be really helpful. The existing building is a three-storey building but it's staggered over one storey, so opposite our house there's three storeys, slightly up the hill it's still three storeys, there is a step in the building and I think as a general consensus we would probably be happy with the five-storey building again if it was stepped up the slope it would still generally be hidden behind the trees, it would still poke a bit out the top of the trees but approximately four storeys would be hidden by the existing trees and what we do find difficult is a lot of the documents when they say it's going to be well hidden within the trees then there's other documents saying you'll have far reaching views over the green belt and you can't have both. It will be as you can see from the handout there's a view from King George Fields that we've mocked up that is fairly accurate using our sort of measuring methods but that view has been deliberately withheld from the townscape and the heritage which would be one of the most useful ones as well as the bottom of South Place which is where the most impact is going to be on the residential areas. So again that image has also been withheld from, well just not included in the townscape and the heritage assessments, impact assessments but that's been since the very first application we've highlighted it quite a few times that it would be really useful that the public can see exactly what impact this building is going to be doing and when we've sent this through to our neighbours and our community group and the wider neighbours everyone is generally shocked at the size and the impact which doesn't come across in the documents that are available on the application. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Okay thank you very much. We've got also Andy Shamash, yeah great. Same routine, you press the middle icon button and you'll have three minutes for my new start. Thank you and you'll get a one minute warning. Members as acknowledged in the officer's report this proposed scheme would result in significant harm to the surrounding neighbourhood including my family at 19A South Close. This harm mainly comes in the form of an unacceptable level of overlooking into our property as well as several others at the bottom of South Close. Units on the higher floors will be able to look directly into our bedrooms even with the existing tree screen and this already significant harm is made much worse by the proposed removal of several trees which currently play a vital role as a visual screen between South Close and the scheme without any certainty as to what level of replanting will take place. Additionally, as acknowledged in the report, the scheme has a significant impact on our levels of natural light. As has been pointed out by the Barnet Residence Association, the original consent of the 92 unit scheme was considerably flawed, informed by an incorrect retail rating, its height and massing are greatly out of character to the surrounding area. It did however at least make a contribution to the borough in its provision of 35% affordable housing. The developer's viability assessment, which has not been independently reviewed, contends that even with a reduced 15% affordable provision, the scheme falls short of viability. Although as a property finance professional myself, I noted the generous allowances within the figures of over 10 million developer profit and 2.5 million contingency. And if we are to believe this assessment, if the scheme is not viable even with the more than halved affordable provision, how is the developer going to be able to deliver it? The members should be aware of the well-publicised previous failures of this developer, notably in respect of the Parklet Place scheme in Kilburn, which collapsed with 26 million of debt in a more favourable economic environment. And is it not likely, or even obvious given their previous application, that if consent for this scheme is obtained, the developers will again plead poverty and look to submit a further scheme backed by yet another viability assessment, reducing the affordable provision again and maximising their profits at the expense of Barnet residents. My neighbours and I are not anti-development, but the solution to the apparent deliverability issue of the approved scheme is not to load more and more units onto an already overdeveloped scheme. There is potential on this site for a scheme, especially when considered with the neighbouring site of Fortune House, also owned by this developer. Our suggestion to the applicant is to look again at the whole site, preferably with meaningful local consultation, in order to produce a scheme which delivers valuable housing, minimising unnecessary harm to the local area. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have members of the committee got any questions? Just going back to your last comment, I'm just wondering what you mean by the developer putting forward an alternative scheme. I mean, this is their latest alternative of what they say is affordable from their point of view. So you think they could put forward something that's much more acceptable? We – the developer's also sort of – a separate scheme, Fortune House, that has received a sort of resolution to grant for 41 units, I believe, adjacent to this development. So our suggestion is that, you know, sort of, I guess, sympathetic to their viability concerns, but the solution is not to just increase massing, increase harm to the local environment. You know, look again at the whole scheme together with, you know, the adjacent site, sort of come up with a scheme, you know, in consultation with local residents that, you know, doesn't have the benefits but without the sort of significant harm that this scheme does. So you think that this scheme is making up for just having a smaller Fortune House next door, which presumably would have more impact on Snowbury Court next door to that? I mean, I think when you compare this with the existing consented scheme, what you've got is increased harm to the local area by the sort of increased massing, overlooking, loss of natural light, trees, et cetera. You think that's because the other one is smaller, because it's making up for – You know, what we're sort of saying is that when you're comparing it to the existing consented scheme, increased harm, less benefit, that's the sort of essential equation, isn't it? There's sort of, you know, if the original scheme was sort of – it's been acknowledged that that does cause harm to the local environment, and, you know, members judged with the 92 state scheme that the provision of 35% affordable, you know, on balance outweighed that harm. You know, what's happening with this application is there's increased harm and less sort of affordable benefit. To a large extent, we're looking at this compared to the first approved scheme, which is still, instead of being approved, whether or not they're able financially to build it or not. So to some extent, or to a large extent, we're looking at the increased harm that this will do over the first one, which, again, was very large and had an impact on you. So is the extra harm that this will do excessive? You know, how do you quantify the extra harm that this scheme will do? You know, what our sort of argument would be, the initial decision could be argued to have been a flawed decision. It was one of the sort of important points that we made. At the time, the site was considered a P-TEL 4, which I think was a big part of informing the original consent, and I think it's now acknowledged that that was not a correct designation. And also take that into account, you know, sort of amendments to an originally flawed scheme, you know, should be sort of seen in that light. But yes, our case sort of absolutely is that there is a significantly increased level of harm with this scheme in terms of views, in terms of our natural light, and clearly there's less benefit to the borough in the form of 15% affordable housing, which is significantly less than the original scheme. You mentioned the impact to your property on daylight and sunlight. I mean, the assessment I've looked at suggests that obviously there is a reduction, but that reduction largely speaking falls within guidelines of the BRE set. Are you familiar with that assessment, or are you sort of disagreeing with that assessment? I just kind of want to know. It's difficult to disagree with a professional assessment. Certainly, you know, perhaps my property is one of the bungalows on South Close, sort of acknowledge that my property is one of the least affected, but you know, it certainly was pointed out in the officer's report that some of the loss of natural light was, you know, sort of not within guidelines, and it seems to be that that's, you know, it always seems to be judged on the basis of on balance, but I think it's even sort of acknowledged in the officer's report, there is a significant issue on our properties, probably Darren's more than mine. Sure, yes, and that's mentioned in the officer's report, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. Is there any further questions for anyone? Thank you very much. Oh, I beg your pardon, Councillor Cornelius. Just one, if I may. Do you feel that, aesthetically, if one ignores all the sort of surveyor talk, et cetera, do you feel that the infill on the top floor actually has a bigger impact aesthetically than it may do physically, in that it becomes so much more slab-like? I sort of always come back to, and I know you're sort of comparing it with the existing consented scheme, but I know there was a site visit the other day, it's always amazing to me that an eight-storey scheme was sort of consented in the first place when you consider the surrounding area. I think it is out of character, and I think it is sort of inappropriate when you look at the general area of the neighbourhood, it certainly seems that first time round, with the 92-unit scheme, they got more than they could reasonably have expected, and it's therefore very difficult now to see them just trying to build on that great result that they got before, and sort of loading more and more units onto the scheme, I don't think it's something that should be accepted. But yes, I think your point is a valid one, that what we get with the aesthetic of the new scheme is that sort of slab-like effect, perhaps less than the slightly more graduated view of the consented scheme. Thank you very much. We're very pleased to present the scheme to you this evening. That reflects months of design work and consultation with your officers, as well as being better designed to meet local housing needs. The proposal delivers a high-quality development that balances community benefits with robust design. Members will be aware that there's next-stand permission on the site, the first application it's often referred to, that is no longer viable due to dramatic changes to the housing market. Very similar scheme was then brought forward earlier this year, which was refused, with the biggest concern amongst members being the level of affordable housing on site. We've listened carefully to that feedback. We have explored every avenue to make the scheme viable for on-site affordable housing, the result of which you see before you this evening, which delivers 15% affordable housing, all of which will be socially-rented homes. To provide this increase, we've increased the number of units on the site, but this is achieved by seeking to infill appropriate elements of the building. It is no higher than the originally approved scheme. The SATE scheme is also no closer to existing dwellings than the originally approved scheme, and your officers report SATE that they find the plans acceptable in townscape terms. It's also, and I really want to emphasise this point, because we've now got a scheme that is 100% socially-rented rather than 60% socially-rented on the first scheme, we now have one more social home than the approved scheme, so 17 socially-rented homes rather than 16. So the building will step down in height towards Moxon Street, with the largest part of the building being at the bottom of the site, ensuring it integrates smoothly with the surrounding townscape. To minimise the visual impact, china trees and landscaping will enhance the site. In line with sustainability objectives, the scheme will include solar panels, air source heat pumps and measures to achieve biodiversity net gain, well in excess of the 77-year-old city. A thorough transport assessment has been conducted, demonstrating a net decrease in vehicular transport compared to the current use. We have listened to concerns on daylight/sunlight through thorough, detailed testing of the surrounding units. In summary, this is a scheme of high quality and thoughtful design, and offering significant public benefits. It represents the regeneration of a brownfield site, providing much-needed housing, including on-site socially-rented homes and employment space in a sustainable, community-focused manner. By incorporating 17 socially-rented homes, Intech House is helping to deliver more homes with the greatest housing need. We are pleased the application is recommended for approval by our officers, and we hope you agree with this carefully considered development, and it can be agreed this evening. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, thank you very much. I have got Councillor Cornelius, Councillor Barnes and Councillor Farrier. Don't worry, I will come back for another round if there are. Councillor Cornelius. Thank you very much. Please excuse me if it is in the report, and I have missed this. The socially-rented housing that is going to be on this site, should the application go ahead, could you go into that in a little more detail, please? What do you mean by a social rent? Will that be the same as a Barnet Homes rent? Who are you thinking will manage the socially-rented property, and who will have the nomination rights to that property, please? So it will be a socially-rented home and market rent set in line with what is agreed with in the legal agreement, which is set by Barnet Council. I will look to your officer here, and I believe it is 60% of market rent, I believe that to be correct, you may want to just come back on that one, but it is not affordable rent, London Living rent, it is socially rent as defined by Barnet Council. One site provision will be transferred across to a housing association, that will be part of the section 106 agreement for that to be delivered, and then nomination rights will be for Barnet Council to determine who is in the greatest need on your housing register to occupy those units. Councillor Barnes. Thank you, there was some suggestion of linkage with the adjoining site, would you like to comment on that? Yeah, look I can completely understand why people are kind of linking the two, they are obviously two separate applications, and there are very good reasons for that, number one there is a different ownership structure on Fortune House in which the landowner is part of the development arm there, and this applicant is project managing the scheme, whereas on this site they purely own the site, and because there is an existing occupier with a longer lease, these two schemes will be brought forward in very different timescales. This one we want to get cracking on with straight away, hence why we are here with application number three, Fortune House will just take a little bit longer, and there is no connection here in terms of viability of the two, the level of development that has been set on the site is based on the individual assessments of each site and what we think can be safely contained in terms of capacity, in terms of townscape terms and design, and so there is no connection there at all in terms of viability or cross subsidy or anything like that. Yes, I want to address one of the first things you say, that this is better designed to meet local housing needs, and it is no higher than the approved scheme, now we have heard that one particular corner, although it may seem overall not higher, there is an infill, the top step back floor is coming forward so it will be higher, and better designed, I think it is not better designed, so I wondered if you could expand on your design comments. So I will just deal with a second point first, apologies if I wasn't clear, what I meant to say, if I didn't say it was better designed to meet local housing needs, i.e. previous scheme didn't have any affordable housing on site, this one delivers the affordable housing on site in terms of those 17 socially rented homes, so it is better designed to meet those local housing needs, apologies if that wasn't clear. Very fair challenge in terms of that height point, I suspect it is probably when you have only got three minutes to expand on all of the details there, so you have got that top story at the moment on the approved scheme and we have filled in around it, so it is no higher than that existing highest point, perhaps that would be the most accurate representation of the point I am trying to make there. Yes look, and I think to be fair your officer did highlight that there will be more visibility of the scheme within the street scene and it is of course unavoidable when you are delivering more units and increasing the density, you can't hide those units away, they will appear from certain locations, particularly when you are very close to them, you will see more of the building, but in terms of from a townscape perspective, when you are further step back, which is the purpose of the policy on tall buildings, is that it won't have a significant impact in terms of those views, it is only we are going to see it closer up on South Place. Thank you, what do you say to the residents' points about the loss of daylight and sunlight for certain properties on South Close, what is your, because obviously they are concerned about that, and that is a harm to them, what would you be doing about that? Yes and look, it is completely understandable in terms of daylight and sunlight impact that residents would be objection and raising concerns on that and we completely understand that. The point here is that there is, we are broadly within the guidelines in terms of what BRE sets for guidelines, it is not a requirement that you meet that and quite often there are schemes that exceed or fall below those guidelines, in this instance we are pretty much there on all of the existing dwellings, there is the one property in terms of 21 South Close that does have more of a significant impact and we are not trying to hide away from that. Why it probably looks a little bit worse than it does in terms of the figures is that one of the units, the ones that is most affected is the living room which is very long and thin, so it relies on daylight at the front of the room in terms of the building, and that bedroom as I understand it also has quite a big overhang as well so the area that it takes its light from is like that basically, so even a slight increase in height compared to what is there already has quite a significant impact on the numbers, so it is a case of if you do want to develop this site for any kind of increase in height on that site, inevitably there will be a significant impact on that one specific room because of its layout and the way that it is, and that is obviously something that you as members will have to balance in terms of the level of harm, both myself and the officer have come to the conclusion that that harm benefit should be in favour of a proven scheme, obviously you will have to make your own decision. How would you react if it was your bedroom? How would I react? That is a good question isn't it? Look I regularly write and support planning applications in my neighbourhood, I can understand why people would be disappointed with what is happening in that specific site, but at the end of the day as planning officers and planning committees you have to take everything in the round don't you, and something has got to happen on that site, something has to happen with it, it can't stay as it is, and as I said it is inevitable that there will be some impact on 21 South Close if this site is to be delivered. Are there any other questions? I've got a few questions. I mean on that issue, part of Councillor Cohen's question I think was that you are right having reviewed the daylight and sunlight analysis and what is in the officer report, there are some impacts around a number of the properties but the biggest impact is on that room in number 21 which I think the distribution in the consented scheme is something like 0.76 distribution of light and that drops down to 0.51 in the new scheme, or the scheme we are considering now I should say. I mean I think part of his question was is there anything that as a developer you can do to help that situation in terms of the resident there? I don't think there is if you want to deliver the amount of socially rented housing that we are looking to deliver here. The units on the upper floor are one of the few places that we think is sensible and appropriate to deliver the additional housing that enables this level of affordable housing that we are coming with you today. As I say, I don't think there is anything that can be done on that point. It is just an unfortunate quirk of the layout of that building and the way in which the windows interact with the scheme. Okay, thank you. So you talked a bit about the viability and it has been mentioned by a couple of the residents as well. In terms of the viability assessment, it looks like we obviously as you know that was one of the reasons that we refused this scheme last time as we were concerned about the viability effectively. So I am paraphrasing but effectively concerned about that. You have currently got a situation where your residual land value is about minus 3 million. But I did note that in that viability assessment you are looking at a 20% profit which is around about £10 million. So I suppose I am putting those two things together but I am interested to know how you are addressing the current deficit in the viability assessment. Is your question essentially how would the scheme deliver for what it takes to make the development? Exactly, yes. Sorry, could you put your microphone on? Sorry, apologies. As I say, it is a fair point. These are very challenging times for the development sector given the construction costs and the house prices decrease as we have seen in recent years and there are a lot of hard decisions that need to be made by developers. In this instance it is a case of the developer has to take a hit in terms of what their return is on the site compared to what they originally envisioned for the site. As a small and medium sized developer they need these schemes to be coming out of the ground and to be delivering them in order to fund further schemes. We are not talking about Barra or Avistra or Bellway or anything like that. They need these schemes to be coming out of the ground and therefore that is why these difficult decisions around deliverability are being made. Sort of to pick up on that point, how long have you been trying to develop this site for? Your client took over the ownership of this land and I would be interested to know how long it has been like it is. This was nothing to do with my client or ourselves but there was originally a permitted development rights application on this site for an Office to Resi conversion which was refused and I think that may have been by the original owner and the point at which that kind of reached a dead end is when they started to sell it. So I think our involvement, the application was, I think it was September 2022 was submitted so I think we had about nine months. I suspect the start of January 2022 was when we started on it if my memory is correct and obviously that was a very different time in terms of interest rates and construction costs and pre-inflation and the budget and I guess the one thing that I would highlight here in terms of what changed since that first application is that a couple of months after the application was submitted we had the budget that led to the very high increases in terms of interest rates and so we had a very different scenario by the time the application was finally approved in terms of the viability of the scheme. It has certainly been around two to three years plus in terms of the project. So one of the things that the Planning Officer mentioned in the report was around looking at options around the employment space and obviously you have decided to keep some employment space which I think obviously that is a positive thing. I mean how viable do you feel that employment space is in that location? Is that something that you are feeling that you will be able to sell or rent or whatever and make a good viable place for employment uses? Yeah I guess the one thing I would say is that to start off with is that development doesn't, viability and success doesn't rise and fall on the employment space within it. It's always been designed in mind with the fact that this isn't the place where you're going to get a big employer coming in. It's designed as small units that are almost kind of incubators for those start-ups that need some floor space and don't want to take you on the high street or can't afford somewhere particularly expensive. And in terms of the reason why the level it's set at is where it is is basically you could not convert that floor space into residential use. It wouldn't be suitable for that purpose. So it serves two purposes. One is it makes very good use of the floor space and helps with your kind of place making of the scheme. It gives you a very nice kind of entrance and sort of an active frontage in that location. And also you get a mixture of uses there as well so you can help support some local small businesses hopefully. Thank you. Has anyone got any further follow up questions? Okay thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Okay we now move to the part of the meeting where members of the committee can ask questions of the officers and make comments and discuss the application before we then move to a vote on the application. Has anyone got any comments or questions they would like to make? Councillor Barnes. Right I've got a few of the issues that were brought up previously. Hopefully maybe somebody else will ask some questions. So part of the development is now going to be eight storeys and that comes into the realm of being classified as a tall building and it's been suggested that this is not a location that should be having a tall building. Right but the policy is that you still have to assess it against the relevant criteria. So whilst it doesn't necessarily mean it's not appropriate there are circumstances which may allow for it to be appropriate or where the balancing exercise may find it appropriate. So in this particular instance we looked at different areas of the scheme which could accommodate additional massing and we felt that whilst the additional bit at the very back could accommodate it and become a tall building but it's no taller overall. So whilst it infills the tallest element still is the tallest element it's no taller than that and it's only because of the topography of the land that it becomes, that it's eight storeys and a tall building. So I mean the policy kind of sets out those particular locations from a townscape point of view where it is where we deem it more appropriate but doesn't say that it can't be considered altogether. I think that's the way we've carried out this exercise. Okay I think I get that. Can I ask about the trees as well? Specifically how many trees are being removed and I think it was suggested there might be replacements possible by some mechanism. So the tree position is exactly the same as each of the previous applications. There are two trees within that. So there's a large sort of more dense group of trees on the corner and then as you go down they become a little more scattered and a little bit more open. So there's a couple of trees from here and then around Popping Station in here. So that hasn't changed and it's very explicitly set out in the plans and in the report. So is that a total of four trees? Yeah and so the rest of them I said then this is the tree protection plan. So there are obviously kind of four street trees which we are covering the value for their loss and previously we have just kind of said and I think the consent scheme just says the money shall be spent by the green spaces team. So what we have tried to ensure and to beef up that provision and some of the comments that have been raised by the residents is and we have kind of indicative and spoken to the green spaces team is that can we can we use some of that money and specifically say and target it along this area as a priority first so they can use as much of that money to plant as much as they can in that area and that's what that's kind of we've expanded them with the in the addendum so in the event that permission is granted then green spaces are very clear how that money is to be spent and where it's to be spent and this is a we've been thinking I've been particularly spoken to the green spaces team here said to in principle they are happy to look at that. Now we can secure replanting or where the site and how many trees were that within this application because outside of the redline site so our green spaces team can only start looking at that is once permission is granted and the money is is secured so hopefully that kind of makes sense but sorry just on that point it wasn't us with the replanting address would that help in some way you see them would it disguise some of the massing was it the massing or the daylight sunlight day so the help of the screening it will by no means I think we're admitting that it will by no means screen or covered entirely and but some of the concerns raised ours that it will become it it will be a bit more visible than with a bit more visible without it so some so if we can get some replanting back in then at least that is some form of mitigation of the mass of the massing yeah what about the doesn't affect the daylight sunlight issue no of the houses I just want to check that right but that you can't guarantee I can't guarantee but we were obviously getting the money the money is guaranteed so the limits of that and and then but it's obviously kind of I can't tell you where exactly until green spaces go down and survey the land they kind of say well look we could get X number of trees here or X type of hedging here or this is how much money we could spend that's the that's the position I just can't the best case how much of the massing would it disguise or cover I can't I think it's difficult it's difficult to say it might be worth also looking at view number seven which I think has got the I mean it's difficult being this one which has got obviously got the existing the building set behind the existing tree coverage and obviously sobs that there you know there isn't it's kind of just above the tree line but some of those trees were saying would go but the ideal will be that we will be placing yeah I mean I think it go I mean some of them according to the notes some of them are going for a more a cultural reason so I assume there's a trees which are not I mean it's not very healthy so ideally we could replace the ones that are not very healthy with with new trees it's by no means that every tree along that that boundary is come is coming out so there there is still going to be an element of screening routine by those mature trees they say you may just get because there's only a few coming out in different in different places so you mean you've got to here but you can still see there's there's trees in this corner there are still a couple of trees in the bay so you're going to have pockets of maybe more visible intervening of the building and probably more likely in this bit here are there any other cancer partnership so I can't to go you put your which I noticed that we went through a couple of pictures that can I see them again yeah can you put your mic on yeah so that's the corner I just showed you here so the front so this corner here is that corner there this corner here only gets in filled at the very top see where it's so there's no so it's here and here so those are those are the three infilling elements I've got a couple of questions I just like to pick up as well just to the on the the Barnet residents Association said that their stated that CPZ permits would be would be available to to residents of the new development but my understanding is that they won't be just wanted to clarify that we would restrict the right to obtain permits thank you for that also there's been quite a lot of discussion around P tell three and for the report makes it very clear that this is P tell three but I'm also interested in policy each one of the London plan which talks about available you know about the development of available brownsfield sites and then puts a range of P tell three to six are you aware of any kind of distinction between three and four in that in that policy no so under the current policy it talks about optimizing sites from from three to six so that's what we have done and I've obviously said to this committee before the fact that as officers we don't feel having a three or four would change the scheme or would would change our advice as we have optimized the site because we feel is unique at the very at the very bottom of the hill and therefore optimizing it would produce for us the same result I think the similar question in a way that I put to one of the residents that having looked at the daylight sunlight analysis both in the application documents and in your report it does seem that in terms of comparing this scheme with the scheme which already has planning consent the one to six south close appears to be similar if not the same 22 South close seems to be similar with a small reduction as does 20 South close as does 19 South close but 21 South closes is an area where there is a reduction and that is the the VSC is reduced from point three seven to point three three and the distribution from point seven six to point five one I mean I guess it's it's a question I mean you've looked at it in the report you know whether you feel that is a significant reduction or as the applicant just just stated this is something you might expect given the configuration of that particular room in question. Yes so in the report we obviously have set or to set site from from the Smith report that from 19 a to 22 South close that there are some of those properties that will experience reductions in one assessment but comply on the other assessments so therefore in balance it's both some properties we have just experienced reductions that fall just below the BRE guidance or something so in one instance we kind of say well because it's relatively close to the BRE it's still fine to be acceptable the particular one that you've already pointed out and the report is 21 South close so from the original application and there was an assumed layout and from the previous application from it from the second application we obviously there wasn't there was a detailed visit that went to the property of South close measured the room measured the layout and so I think that is that so the highest set out within the previous report on this one is the most accurate position and yes it does come out that there's a combination of factors that it is the proposed development and the existing design of the overhang does result in a considerable reduction to one room off 21 South close and we recognize that's and that is stated within that that is that is a harm I think kind of the position that we've landed on yes we recognize there are reduction in levels across a number of properties however there's only one room which is said considerable the rest of them are relatively minor reductions across the rest of them so therefore it was taking them as a whole and we do I think we consider to be sort of a moderate harm across all of them. Thank you for that I mean I think I mean I've had a look through obviously all of the viewpoints which have been provided and certainly from you know one looks at view one two three four five and six in comparison to the original consented scheme the differences are marginal I would say obviously view seven which we looked at again there is there's clearly an impact there and that was the view I think that we focused on at the last committee meeting and there were some concerns about that in terms of having an impact and on the development and you know specifically a visual impact and there is as we discussed there is an impact in daylight which is marginally greater for particularly for property number 21 south close in this current scheme as compared with the scheme which is consented so I think you know there continue to be some harms which are caused by this scheme there are I think significant benefits attached to this scheme beyond what we looked at last time I think that 16 affordable social rented units given that that's more social rented units than we had even in the original scheme is a significant benefit and I think that sorry 17 I beg your pardon well even more so then and I think that's important and I think that that benefit also helps to make the overall housing delivery a more significant benefit and of course we have got over a hundred housing units now which will go some way to towards our current housing targets I think it is also important that we have got in front of us a scheme that I think we can we can consider to be viable given the level of profit that is indicated and the potential shortfall that there is there is a route there for the developer to deliver it and there is of course the addition of the viable employment space so I think you know this scheme has the ability to unlock this site and take forward something which has been sitting in with the developer with the planning authority for a few years now and on the tall building issue I would acknowledge that this is not an area that we designated for tall buildings but the it is it is as you see the same or very similar to the the original scheme and in fact the tall building element is actually just it's a it's a quirk of the the topography where in a sense there's only one part of the building which because the the idea is that the top floor is extended that effectively becomes an eight story element so but I think it would be important that if members were to approve this scheme that we would acknowledge that this is very exceptional it is entirely to do with the topography of the site and it is specifically to deliver some additional affordable housing so I think my view on balance is that the benefits do outweigh the harms that are that are caused and I would be proposing to vote in favour of the recommendations yeah I was just going to say that but before we put that out for anyone to make comment we have got some legal advice as well I think it would be wrong if I didn't highlight some of the legal aspects of this you're aware of course that there is an appeal that will be taking place pretty soon actually this week proof will be going out what you may not be aware of and I don't I don't laud this to you I simply state it for what it is it's been made clear both by the opponent's barrister and more recently by the director of the developer that were this planning application before you approved tonight they would withdraw that appeal that is a material planning consideration for you sir it is also relevant that you have grounds for appeal which we are defending we've got a barrister lined up to defend those and we will rigorously seek to defend those they do include the issues around PTAIL which we talked about they do include some of these issues around the the massing of the trees are they absolutely rock watertight to mix two metaphors well I think I've picked up from our barrister they have qualities that we will be that will be presented they may or may not be needed depending on what happens here that's why it is a relevant consideration for you I'm not going to spend time over costs we do know that that appeal will almost certainly include a cost application almost regardless of how the inspector concludes on this one I think members have been right to do the comparison between this application and the approved application and I say that with one caveat and that one caveat is that approved application has 35% affordable housing however by the time we reached the application the subject of this appeal not only did the applicants say there is no viability for that level of affordable housing so did the consultants I think they were consultants that were provided who provided evidence to you as the council so it isn't just the applicants saying it it's your own advisor saying there was not a situation where there could be viability now we might be disappointed that that went from 35% to zero and we you know that that's a concern nevertheless what you've heard from the applicant tonight is look we understand the importance of affordable housing here we want to do something about it is it really viable even now quite possibly not but they're prepared to take that hit I think these are points that you do have to put into the mix when you reach that decision because this isn't easy we don't bring it easy things to strategic planning but it's important to weigh up all of these things including the appeal where we see that appeal going and the risks and the prospects of that I'm not going to underestimate the impact on 21 south coast I can see all of that but this is one of the things we always have to do in planning is to balance the harm against benefits and if we can make those benefits work we will what I would also say is in terms of those trees we will have a 106 agreement in relation to this we won't be able to determine exactly where those trees go because we can't really do that for the 106 but we can make priorities within that to maximize and maintain that screening as best we can particularly in that area around south coast I hope that's helpful. Thank you yes very helpful I've got Councillor Barnes and then Councillor Cowley. Can I just ask for some clarification about the affordable housing and the review mechanism is it correct that the review can't make the number go down but it could go up or could it make it go down. Yeah it's there to capture so it can go up so we've secured the minimum so that is the minimum vision that we're securing the review mechanisms are there to capture any uplift so we've got to yeah there's two stages we've got an early stage and a late stage to capture two different points. Yeah I don't think this one did but previous viability assessments often have a set of calculations which look at a five percent uplift in costs and a five percent downturn in values and vice versa the first one doesn't affect us because the number won't go down but obviously if land values if sale values go up by a margin then you know we would be in a position where there would be more funding available usually by the time the late stage review happens it's very difficult to put that actually as properties in the development so normally it would be a cash contribution but yes it can only from our perspective it can only go up yeah yeah. Councillor Cohen. Yeah the representative the company was saying that the housing association would deal with the social housing thing will that be set will that be regulated that be set out in some kind of a condition or will that be regulated so that we have will we have any control over the way that's done so that it does happen in a way that's that we're happy with. Yes Councillor so as I said the so the affordable units usually get sold to a an RP here usually have to be on our approved list or known to us so they know kind of the barnet requirements immediately and I say we secured social rent that is set out nationally what that rent level is and the 106 secures that a hundred percent of those nominations come from barnet regardless of at any point in perpetuity so it will maintain those on the barnet waiting this benefit from those properties. Are there any other questions? You were bound to get a comment and it's just a few words but it's still very big very ugly and very undesirable. Thank you for the comment I mean I think the point that was made is that we are there is a comparator with the existing consented scheme and yeah okay are there any other are there any other comments? Okay so shall we move to the vote just in doing that I would reiterate the the I guess the conclusion that that I've drawn from that is that we're still we're not saying that there isn't harm caused by these proposals but that in if we agree the recommendations we're doing so on the basis that the the benefits to the scheme including the affordable housing the level of housing the delivery and the employment space are outweighing those the harms that are that are that are caused by the development so if we would like to move to the vote on the recommendations those are contained in section two of the report which is to approve the scheme subject to effectively subject to section 106 agreement and the conditions in the report all those in favor please indicate one two three four five six in favor all those against please indicate two against so the decision is carried six votes to two thank you all very much for your attendance this evening I haven't been notified of any urgent items or any other business if anyone has any other items though so I would then declare the meeting closed thank you all very much thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript