Transcript

Transcript

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. It's past seven o'clock so we're going to start the meeting now. Could we have some quiet in the public gallery please and start the meeting. My name is Claire Farrier, I'm chair of this planning committee. Just make sure I switched on. Can you hear now? Is that better? OK, yeah, I think we've turned the speakers on better. Yeah, I think the speakers at the back have been turned on. I say thank you very much for attending this evening. I will ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves and then the planning officers and legal officer and governance officer. So my name is Claire Farrier, chairing this committee. I'm a councillor for East Binchley. Councillor Roberts. Councillor Arjun Mitra, member for East Binchley Ward. Councillor Wyant-Culley, member for Coneydale South Ward. Councillor Joshua Conway, Henven Ward. Jonathan Mills, planning manager at Terese. Kate Foster, planning officer. Edith Lones, senior planner. Jonathan Mills, planning manager at Terese. Well, yeah, we'll try and speak closely into the microphones and we're trying to get the speakers seen to at the back. So if we can carry on. Mark Spinkthorpe, planning manager. Good evening. Hi, dear Osgoode, planning manager. Tina Froheji, legal advisor. Good evening. Farah Hossain, governance officer and clerk to the committee. Thank you. Now, we ask that you remain seated during the meeting unless you're called to the table to address the committee. And please note that the meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in-law and by the council. By attending, either in person or online, you may be picked up on recordings. And the council recordings are covered by our privacy notice, which can be found on our website. Now, for each application, the planning officer will present the application. The speakers will then have three minutes each to address the committee. And you'll be told when you have a minute left. Then there's the opportunity for members of the committee to ask you questions. And following that, the committee will discuss and determine the application. And we will announce the decision. So, if we move on to the agenda, I've got the minutes of the last meeting, which was on the supplementary agenda, everything that. I'm pretty happy with the minutes of the last meeting. Abstinence of members. Councillor, do you want to speak? Councillor Greenspan has been taken to hospital this evening. Councillor Simberg may be on his way. Okay, thank you. All the other members of the committee are here. Any declaration of interests? No, and there's no dispensations granted. Everybody has seen the addendum that was sent out and published this afternoon. And so, moving on to the first application on the agenda, which is the Church Hall of St Mary the Virgin in Barnet. Thank you, Chair. So, the item is involving Church Hall at St Mary the Virgin Church of England in Camden Way. The proposal involves demolition and rebuild of the existing two-storey Church Hall. Members would recall this application was heard at the 9th of October committee meeting. It was called in by Councillor Weisel on Heritage Grounds. After discussions, a motion was moved that the application be minded to approve and the application was deferred to next meeting for determination on the grounds that the benefits of a new Church Hall to the local community outweighed the harm listed in the officer's report and that the redevelopment would fit the character of the local area. So, for clarity, where an application is recommended for refusal and the committee is minded to approve the application, the item is deferred to the next meeting to enable re-notification to take place and to give an opportunity for objectors to the application and the applicant to attend the subsequent meeting and make representations and for a re-hearing of the application to take place. So, this is in accordance with the council's constitution. So, the application has been brought back to this committee with suggested conditions. In the event the committee overturned the officer's recommendation, the applicant's agent has had cite and agreed to suggested conditions which are attached as an appendix to the report. So, the Church Hall is outlined in red and is set within the grounds of the Grade 2 star listed parish church, therefore forms part of the church curtilage. There is no boundary between the actual Church Hall and the church itself. The site is within the green belt and Monckenhati Conservation Area. It is within an area of archaeological significance and is covered by an Article 4 direction. The common opposite is at this location here and it's a site of importance for nature conservation. Church Hall is locally listed and previous extensions have been granted, however the applicant states that the foundations are not sound enough to restore the original building. So, this is the proposed site plan. The redevelopment of the Church Hall would be approximately one metre deeper and one metre wider and it is also one metre set in from this boundary or its original position. The extensions would be a single storey to the south side and two storey to the north and would be a two storey building. So, these are the site photographs. Again, more site photographs. This is a view from the common and this is the rear elevation of the hall facing the Grade 2 star church building. Again, more site photos. These are the existing plans and sections and these are the existing elevations. Proposed elevations and section. You will note on the existing elevation there's a limited number of windows. On the proposed there are five windows at ground level and six windows at first floor level facing the church graveyard. These are the proposed elevations. As you will see, two storey to the north side and a single storey to the south. The fact that the property falls within the green belt, it has to comply with the volume calculations. So, the volume proposed on this proposal would be approximately 26.6 cubic metres which is over the allowance stated within the residential design guidance. So, this is a proposed CGI of what the building would look like and these are the proposed plans. Again, this is a proposed plan. It's a comparison. It's an overlay of the existing over the, sorry, the proposed over the existing footprint. As you can see, the red line is what's existing there at the minute and the proposal is the black lines. So, one metre further forward and one metre deeper on the sides. Okay, existing and proposed site plan. These are just volume calculations. Heritage officers have objected on the grounds that there would be substantial harm to non-designated heritage assets through the demolition and significant harm to Grade 2 star listed church building and harm the conservation area. Heritage officers also comment that church house makes a good contribution to the setting of the curtilage of the listed church building and the proposal adds significant number of windows to the west elevation. So, the proposal would result in an unbalanced design that would increase the number of window openings allowing direct views into the church yard. As noted in the planning history of the site, extensions has previously been approved. However, as mentioned earlier on, the applicants have not provided sufficient justification to say why the extension cannot be restored as it stands and why a demolition is required. I have nothing further to add to the report. We did have a speaker this evening, Councillor Farrier, but I believe he's unable to attend. We've got representations to read out. Thank you. Thank you. We had an objector who didn't speak last time, Guy Braithwaite, another AP sent, something you're going to read out. This is a statement from Guy Braithwaite. I have been invited to speak at the planning committee about the proposal to demolish Moncken Hadley Church Hall and replace it with a new hall on the same site. I'm sorry to say I am unable to come this evening owing to illness. I support the ultimate objective of Moncken Hadley Church and the restoration committee to provide a hall and facilities fit for the community's needs. However, it is my view that, and that of the planning officer, that the case is not made, that the present building could not be stabilised and repaired. Thereby enabling it to be extended and refitted for modern use. In the absence of an options appraisal assessing the feasibility and cost of remedial work as opposed to rebuild, the case for demolition is not made. Since the last meeting, the applicant has invited me and colleagues from the Barnet Society to a meeting on site to discuss the proposals. It's a shame that this has not been possible for that to happen before tonight's meeting, but I do look forward to any possibility of finding a better outcome than the demolition of a locally listed building. The officer's report recommending refusal hasn't changed since the last meeting, nor has any new evidence been put forward. Agreeing it now would set a bad precedent for locally listed buildings and conservation areas. We need to ensure that demolitions of heritage assets are not agreed without a sound case being made. That's essential for protecting Barnet's heritage as well as its environment. Thank you, Ms Braithwaite. Ms Braithwaite isn't here, we're not able to ask him any questions on his statement. We have Councillor Weiser, do you wish to speak again? Either speak again or just answer any further questions. Thank you, Chair. I wasn't planning to speak again unless the committee had any further questions from last time. I'm aware, I think, that Councillor Mitchell wasn't here last time, if he had any questions. Councillor Caddick. Thank you. My question is to reinforce the officer's question about proving the viability of restoring the original building. They feel that they have not had sufficient evidence to prove it's not viable. Is there anything you can add to that? I know that this was obviously answered by the agent at the last meeting, and I know from conversations that I've had with the Churchill committee and information that's been provided to me in the past, that the cost of rebuilding what is already there would be twice what is, roughly twice what is currently estimated for demolishing and building a new, and obviously building a new would allow them to slightly move it off the waterway that is running underneath part of the building and making the foundations unstable, which would help secure the building for the future. That is my understanding. Obviously, the technical, much more technical detail was covered by the agent at the last meeting. The questions? No, thank you very much. We have the agent, Alan Cox. Mr Cox here. No, I think the agent is not speaking again, if we can remember, but he did speak last time and address those issues of viability of the building. So we come back to the officers now. Any comments or questions, further questions for the officers? Councillor Carrick. Have you had any further dialogue concerning the viability of retaining the existing hall? No, no further dialogue has been taken place. Okay. Councillor Roberts. Just wanted to check. Do you accept that the building in its current condition is not fit for purpose? Well, we haven't actually said that. The applicant has said that in its current situation, it's not sound enough for extensions to be implemented to the existing building because the foundations are not safe enough. So hence the reason why it would be more viable for the existing church building to be demolished and rebuilt. If I can just confirm, because we indicated that we may like to approve this application, the last one, you've come back with conditions. Did you say that these have been seen and okayed by the - although I know they don't need to, we can put conditions on as we want - but the applicant is okay with the conditions? Yes, so the conditions are attached as an appendix to the report and which should be within the agenda items. So there's a number of pre-commencement conditions that needs to be agreed with the applicant and that's been agreed. So we have emailed the suggested conditions to the agent and he has confirmed that he's in agreement. Thank you. Has anybody got any questions about the conditions or comments about the conditions that may be put on this? No, so if we go to a vote on this, the officers are recommending refusal. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation to refuse? One. And those against the officer's recommendation to refuse? So if somebody would like to propose approval, with the reasons for approval. And a seconder? Councillor Callick. And the reasons, he gave the reasons last time, that the community benefit, sorry, the community benefit, the harm that may be done. So all those in favour of approving with those terms and with the conditions that are in the report? For against? One. Thank you very much. That application is approved with the conditions that were added. And we move on to the next item, which is 7 Northfield Road. Hi, good evening, councillors and members of public. I'm here to present an application for a change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a Class C2 children's home for the care up to three children at 7 Northfield Road. So the application site is a two-storey semi-detached house on the northwestern side of Northfield Road. The area is predominantly residential in character. So it's situated on a corner plot and has previously been extended. So these are the area photos. Site photos showing that they have got a rear garden of about 130 square metres and to the front there is on-site parking for two car parks. There's no external alterations, but mainly regarding to internal changes, ground floor will be converted to reception and play area. And for the first floor plan, there will be three children's homes sized 10.8 square metres to about 14 square metres, which is considered quite spacious. And there will be two staff working area. So the key arguments of this application is whether the use of a children's care home would materially impact the character of the area by virtue of the number of coming and goings and any associated impact in terms of noise and safety. So the applicant has submitted additional information regarding staff arrangement. There will be likely coming and goings happened at 7am and latest at 10.30. So the proposal is unlikely to result in an intensification of the use beyond that expected of a single household. So again, this is similar approach to the recently granted permission at 49 St. James and Asian House. Just a key note that the area itself is quite poorly accessible as it has a PTA of 1B. However, the needs have been substantially justified. Say the house is about 15 to 18 minutes walk from Cots Foster and New Barnet underground. And also in terms of safety, map police were consulted and there are some numbers of risk management strategy has been further submitted in order to provide mitigation measures to safeguard the children and also lower the impact to the disturbance to the neighbour. So therefore, on balance, the needs has been justified and also the harm to the character and neighbouring amenities are unbalanced acceptable. Therefore, officers is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Thank you. Thank you. We have one object, Jay Welland, Mr Welland, if you'd like to come forward. Let's take a seat and turn the microphone on. There's a button with a face on it. Thank you. And then if you can introduce yourself and you have three minutes to speak, you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Thank you. My name is John Welland. I just must explain to you, I have been diagnosed with vote cancer in the last month, so I hope that you'll give me some leeway. As you can see, I have a slight problem with my speech. Just a second. Can we start the clock when he starts, rather than include the preamble? I'm ready. First of all, with regard to this, I'd like to talk about money, finance. This is a for profit, not Dr Bernardo's, a for profit care home with three children. The income of which could be in excess of a million pounds. With regard to finance for the residents, it could mean a reduction in their property value of anywhere between 10% to 20%. When you're selling a property, you must declare any adverse events or project that can be against someone wishing to buy a property. Our most important worry is antisocial behaviour. The possibility of antisocial behaviour is best described in the application by Sunray Sanctuary. We're talking about security. They say that security is a protection against external threats such as relative income. Also gang members are identified as a possibility that can become a problem with the care home. I cannot believe that the planning committee of Barnet Council will allow this to be dumped in the middle of a peaceful family area. Not to mention a brand new nursery of 100 places within 150 yards of the property. I'd also like to state now we should have had two speakers. One of you could have spoken about problems with the property. No other speakers came forward. We could have another speaker if one had come forward, but I don't think anyone came forward. So if you could just briefly summarise now. You've come to the end of your three minutes. To summarise on behalf of the residents, this will not be the end of our objections. And to be perfectly fair to the project, I think you will be seeing legal action either by a group or by individuals. Unfortunately my medical condition doesn't allow me to enlarge any further. You could just wait a minute and see if there's any questions. Anybody have any questions? No? Thank you very much. You can return to your seat if you prefer to what you had said. No questions, Councillors. What I would say is that some of the concerns you raised, I think the applicant and/or the agent are going to speak. We will ask the applicant to confirm some of the things that you said. So next we have the applicant, Mrs Henry, or the agent that showed us. So you're the applicant, you're going to be running the home so you can answer some of the questions. Yes, sure, can you hear me? Okay, thank you. Say if you can introduce yourself and you'll have three minutes to speak and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Yes. Hi, can you hear me properly? Hi, my name is Hag Henry. I have been an officer register commander for the past seven years. And for several years, it has been my aspiration to establish a children care home. Over the last two years, I have actively pursued this dream, working diligently to bring it to fruition. We can accommodate up to maximum three young people. The same children will use the positive provided. We can accommodate three cars in our private driveway. The visits to the care home are not very frequent and can easily be managed by scheduling the visits. We aim to create a safe and nurturing environment, enabling children to recover from past trauma and grow to achieve their full potential. We work with therapeutic parenting approach, which is key in caring for those who have experienced neglect, abuse, significant development trauma in the early years. We were chosen this property because local risk assessment is positive. The size and layout of the property, surrounding of the property, house features, five double bedroom and a study, a spacious living room, three bathroom with shower toilet and sink, a large kitchen with dining room, a garden, a private driveway at the front of the house that can accommodate three cars. The three children will have their own double size bedroom with plenty of space for bed, wardrobe, desk in a family style arrangement. This five bedroom property has a home-like atmosphere compared to a larger home. It is a smaller setting and it will accommodate only three young people, which can be beneficial for them as well as for the workers. Some researchers believe in promoting equality, valuing diversity and working inclusively. The management strategies for ensuring the safety of the children and the wider community at 7 Northfield Road includes comprehensive staff training, robust policies and procedures, secure environment and a child-centric approach. The children care home will be fully secured and comply with health and safety regulations. If you are in care, your local authorities, your corporate parents, this means they should act like loving parents would and provide with the best possible support. UK Parliament statement by Richard McLean, the planning system should not be a barrier to providing homes for most vulnerable children. Also stated, to support effective delivery, unitary authorities should work with commissioners to access local need and to closely engage the support application. We believe this property is situated in a lovely, quiet, residential area. It could be the perfect, stable, loving home for free children who need it at the most, where the individual needs can be met. This is the right home in the right place. This is a unique opportunity where we can provide a stable, safe and loving home for free young people. This is your opportunity to closely engage to support this application. That's time. Thank you. Right, thank you. I wonder, you heard Mr Welland and his concerns about the children who may be in this home and the anti-social behaviour that may result. So I wonder if you can mention how that would be managed. I saw your staffing regulations, it's going to be one-to-one staffing. So I assume it will be suitable supervision at all times, but I wonder if you can comment on how you manage any possible anti-social behaviour. Yes, the care home will have strict protocols in place. We will comply with all relevant legal requirements. As I mentioned, the management strategies for ensuring safety of the children, we will have comprehensive staff training, robust policies and procedures to follow, a secure environment and a child-sensitive approach. We have a lot of policies, including safeguarding policy, behaviour management policy. At Sunway Sanctuary, we follow therapeutic parenting, informed approach to working with children. We promote an emotional connection between the child and the adult, increase the child's sense of security and trust. We will have basically a lot of policies to follow. Presumably you will be registered and regulated by Ofsted? Staff training will include protection, safeguarding policy first, emergency response. The staff will give therapeutic parenting training as well. So we are promoting the children positive behaviour and teach them how to be positive. The gang members, it's only saying if somebody turns up and frets the children, then the staff will be trained how to react, but it's not necessarily going to happen. Usually there are no issues because we are only accommodating a maximum of three children with a staff member ratio one-to-one, never forward behind, or even more staff members for one child. So it's always going to be supervised correctly, which is not going to allow the children to do any bad behaviour. And that's how it's therapeutic parenting to teach them how to be positive in reaction to other people and for the community. So it's all kind of make sure it's the safety of the community. Yeah, thank you. Mr. Whelan spoke here, but we saw from the objections that came in that other people have similar concerns. So are you going to be able to make a contact number available to local people in case they have any concerns when there's an operation they can raise with you? I mean, it's not strictly a planning matter, that I must say, but it's just from the point of view of the neighbours that are they going to be able to contact you if they have any concerns? Sorry, do I need to answer any more question? As I say, that's not strictly a planning matter, but from the point of view of the concerns that have been raised. OK. It's how you would respond to those. Are you going to be able to provide a contact number for people if they raise concerns when their home is in operation? They're hardly here because it's the... Sorry, yes. Yes, sure. So keep them up. OK, thank you. I would like to add, like, we understand the concern, but this will be only for children. It's like a small family. Yes. We're not here to make any nuisance or any disturbance. We aim to make sure it's not a disturbance whatsoever to the neighbourhood. Councillor Califf. Thank you. The report notes that the Met Police have reviewed your documents, which I assume is your policies as well. So I don't have any concerns about that, but what I would like to know is what experience you've had in managing a children's home. Do you have management? That's not a planning matter. OK. That's up to Ofsted when they register and regulate the service to deal with that. I hope this is a relevant question. How long do your carers normally resident for? How many years? Are they there for an extended period of time? OK, we have a very high expectation for the staff. They have to be the right experience, skills and experience. So all the qualifications have to be... we have to go through Ofsted registration and we have to comply with the legal requirement. And as one of the legal requirements, they have to have relevant qualifications, otherwise we can't open in the first place. If they meet this qualification, on average, and I appreciate it's not an absolute figure, but how long would they stay in place? Well, we try to aim for a small minimum of turnover and make sure the staff and children, everybody happy and not making any disturbance to the neighbourhood. Sorry, you're asking about the children who are going to be living there, how long they'll be there? No, I'm talking years. It depends, but we make sure they are happy so they stay as long as possible because the less turnover is the better for the children. Is that the question? Because we haven't got the staff yet, we have to go through Ofsted registration first. I'm wondering, on average, how long do the carers stay in place? If they're happy, four years. Okay, fine, that's the answer I was after. Thank you. Any more questions, Councillor Conway? There's a clear demand in Barnet for family housing. What demand or what data do you have to show there's a need for this within this area? Sorry, can you repeat the question? There's a clear demand in Barnet for family houses. This would take away a family house. What demand is there? What data do you have to show that there's a demand for this sort of home within Barnet? Okay, the demand is high, the waiting time at least six months, and they're placing children quickly miles away, really miles away or more from their environment, which, as Rachel McLean stated, it's good for the children to be staying with family and friends in the same environment. So it's a very high demand, I would say. Any more questions? No, thank you very much. Any questions for the officers or comments? I would like to comment that we do know as Councillors that there is a big shortage of children's homes and a need for children's homes, and children's services are themselves trying to create a number of these. Those of us who are on the corporate parenting committee know that there's a particular demand for homes for children with emotional needs, who are very often placed far away from the borough and far away from their family's any contact. So I'm not saying that this home would be used, it depends how it's assessed by the council when it's open, whether we would place children there, but there is a big need for this type of home. So if there's no further comments, we'll go to the vote. The officer's recommendation is to approve. All those in favour? That's all. That application is approved. Thank you. And the next item on the agenda is 78 Kings Drive, Edgware. Okay, so this application relates to the proposed erection of a part single storey, part two storey side and rear extension, together with the retention of an existing unlawful outbuilding. The property sits in a permanent location on the inside of a perpendicular bend in Kings Drive, forming part of the original planned layout and constitutes the end of a symmetrical grouping of eight properties. What's going on here? The existing outbuilding sits to the side and adjacent to the boundary with number 76 and fronting the highway. Planning permission for its retention has already been refused three times, is subject to an extant enforcement notice and has been dismissed on appeal twice. The ground floor footprint would extend to a depth of 3.5 metres to the rear and project greater than half the width of the existing dwelling to the side, whilst at first floor level would extend 2.5 metres to the side. Whilst of a relatively modest footprint at first floor level, the proposal would further extend beyond the return building line, contrary to the expectations of the design guidance of SPD, and similarly would not be set down from the ridgeline or back from the other flank of the building, appearing overly dominant to the modest proportions of the original property and unbalancing the symmetry of both the pair and the grouping as a whole, again, contrary to the expectations of the SPD. In respect of the outbuilding, it is proposed to retain the building whilst incorporating an alteration to lower the height of the rear elevation by 0.3 metres for a depth of 0.7 metres, leaving it 2.8 metres in height along the common boundary with number 76. With regard to the previous reason for refusal, this modest amendment is not considered to overcome the harm to amenity, or to materially reduce the impact of the outbuilding in the street scene that results from its scale and prominent siting. On that basis, the application is recommended for refusal. Thank you. We have two speakers registered for this, both in support of the application, I believe, Nigel Saffrey and Emma Catamal. Are either of those here? I don't know which order you want to speak in if you're both here. Thank you. If you can take a seat and put the microphone on. There's a button on the microphone with a face on it. You can see that. If you can introduce yourself, you'll have three minutes to speak. You'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. OK, thank you. My name's Emma Catamal. I'm one of the neighbours, and I'd like to give this application my full approval. I think that putting a pitched roof on the existing garage is a great idea, as it does rectify the height issue, and it keeps costs down and minimises unnecessary building disruption to the neighbours. It is more eco-friendly to make a small adjustment to an existing building than it is to completely demolish it unnecessarily to build a new one. And as I'm sure we'd all agree, we're all trying to do our bit to be as eco-friendly as possible. And lowering the roof from one side is a great compromise as it resolves the height issue and still enables him to keep his tall work van inside, allowing more parking for residents and keeping his van and tools more secure from thefts. And it avoids creating an eyesore for some neighbours who apparently hate looking at vans parked on the street. I live at number 66, Kings Drive, and like us, his entrance door is on the side of his house, but because his property is on a corner, there's been some confusion over which side is the front elevation. As I understand it from a legal perspective, the front elevation is determined by which postcode is used for an address. HA8 8EF is the postcode. His property was legally allocated. Therefore, there's no question that from an official standpoint, his front elevation must be where his bay window is and not where his entrance door is. He has got a porch on the side of his house, but that feature was there when he first bought the property. He's not changed or added on to that. So from the day his house was sold to him with the existing porch in place, it was classed as an HA8 8EF postcode, which relates to the house's bay window and the properties that run in line with his. Plus, the original application to build the existing garage was approved, so I don't see how the front elevation is suddenly in question. His garage is forward of the side elevation, which is completely legal and correct. I think the plans for his extension are great. It makes sense to move the entrance door to the front elevation where the bay window is, as the existing porch is really old, is drafty and has no insulation, so that part of the house needs upgrading. You have one minute left. Thank you. It also resolves any future confusion over which side the front is. And on a personal level, the red tape that's been going on with this for so many years delaying this build has been a massive cause of stress and anxiety to the applicant. He's been battling depression for many years. His mental health has really suffered because of all of this. And if this application is refused again, the financial stress and emotional damage this could do really concerns me. I know it's just another item on your itinerary, but please, it's easy to look at people as numbers sometimes. But this is someone's life and this is going to be massively affecting. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And I hope I hope you will realise from hearing that we don't treat people as numbers. We do fully take everything into into account. Oh, good. Thank you. Are there any questions from the speaker? Councillor Roberts. I just want to establish, is the proposed extension, is that in keeping with the rest of the road? Yes, it looks really nice. He's used the same brickwork and it's been there for many years now. And everyone, there's a lot of support in the neighbourhood. If you see all the people for it, everyone's really keen on it staying as it is or just being lowered slightly to appease the height. Is it keeping again with the size of the other properties in that road? It's on the corner, so it doesn't really affect the other properties too much. Is it still part of the road? Of course, of course. Yeah, the garage does come forward, as you can see from the pictures, but it doesn't affect anything. Any more questions for the speaker? No, thank you very much. Thank you for listening. And is Mr. Saffery here? So we have Councillor Mering Smith would like to speak. I think you know the procedure. If you can put the microphone on, you have three minutes to speak. Thank you very much, Chair. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Obviously, I'm the Councillor for Edgware, Nick Mering-Smith. I've asked for this to be brought to the committee for some very specific reasons. I feel this is an application that has been bedevilled by poor advice from professional advisors. It has caused huge problems for the applicant. The actual location of this site on a corner is very similar to two other sites on corners along King's Drive, which I've personally looked at two or three times now, and doesn't seem to me the proposal is any more significantly out of keeping than the other two sites at number 81 or number 156. Clearly, there can be disagreements about this. One of the concerns I have is that in the application response in the papers, it points out that there was no pre-application consultation. I noticed that this is the case of another application this evening. What I've been told is that professional advisors are advised not to go for pre-application consultation, because it seems to have very little effect in the final outcome of the application. I'm not sure whether this is correct or not, but I think it's certainly something the Planning Department needs to look at, because ideally people would go for pre-application consultation and then have a much smoother process of going through. This particular site has been bedevilled by these problems of the height of the garage, partly, and the location. There was a garage, a sort of structure, exactly on the position of the outbuilding as of now. Unfortunately, nobody has retained a photo of it, because obviously it was demolished some years ago. The height of the building should be two and a half metres allowed from the highest point of the grounds surrounding it. Unfortunately, that was never put in the original application for a certificate, when it should have been a planning application. You have one minute remaining. Thank you. I therefore feel that because of the problems that have surrounded this, and the fact that the principal objector would be number 76, who has withdrawn his objection and is now supportive of this whole application, I believe it's one of these where the committee could justifiably consider not following the officer's recommendation, but actually approving this particular application. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? No. Thank you very much, Councillor. And then we have either the applicant or the agent. Mr Pritel or Mr Avani. Thank you, and if you again, if you could introduce. I'm the applicant for the application that's been made, Mr Avani, for number 78 King's Drive. Can you hear me OK? Lovely. All right. Good evening, committee members. This application is to primarily apply for permission to extend my house due to its location and roof pitch. I am unable to do much in the way of loft or side extensions through permitted development rights to make it into a family home. The site allows for proposed development without impacting on amenity or character. This application for the house extension and garage is what I had wanted to be submitted in 2019, but my architect mistakenly submitted a separate application for the outhouse, resulting in a lawful certificate being granted, signed by the service director. This application in relation to the garage built in 2019 is what was offered as a compromise by the prosecution enforcement officer in 2022 after having discussed it with her colleagues. But she left the council before I was able to conclude the matter with her. Under threat of prosecution, I have tried to come to find to find a compromise as I'm not wanting to be taken to court. Despite being told on numerous occasions that the garage has been built correctly, I feel that the previous refusals are now depriving me of being able to grant anything which would allow investment and improvement to make my home into a family home. I have worked hard and safe to be able to stay in the neighbourhood where I have made many friends and refuse to be driven from my home, but I wish to improve my home by way of regenerating in my neighbourhood. Several applicants within a 500-yard radius of my house have been granted similar approvals. This application has the unprecedented support of the neighbourhood by going online to show their support. The enforcement, which is over a few inches in height, will make no difference if I am pushed to reduce it but will financially cripple me. Demolition of what has been built is so harsh a punishment, despite the case being recommended for closure in September 2021. I built the garage to house my van following numerous break-ins and damage by hit-and-run drivers. It allows me to make a living and my work life is here. All I want is to improve my home and working life. I am a self-employed, hard-working man who is struggling to make a living having gone through five years of hell. My mental and physical health have taken a hammering and with not being able to sleep properly due to the stress and anxiety, to the point of having had suicidal thoughts on numerous occasions. I ask you to please question me about this application or the previous one submitted as they will shape my life from here on. Thank you. Any questions? Members, Councillor Roberts? I just want to ask you, have you considered reducing the height of that garage? That is what the compromise that I have actually submitted, which was in conjunction with this request made by the prosecution officer in 2022, is exactly what I have actually submitted in the application that has been submitted. The compromise, there was actually never an issue with regards to the size of the garage, it was always the height, and the issue was where the highest adjacent point is measured from. The Council had been out in September 2021, the Deputy Enforcement Manager and the Enforcement Officer, along with Mr Joe Henry, who was the previous Head of Planning Law at the Council, came out, took measurements, and deemed that it was only approximately nine centimetres over on the backside, which is what I am proposing to cut, and they recommended that their place be closed. And I am now, three years or more now, still fighting this ridiculous situation. I don't know what to do. I have submitted an application, which is to cut the corner off and reduce the height on the backside, if only to make arrangements and, you know, concede something. It's built correctly because the highest adjacent point is the internal garden ground level of the property, and that is measured by the Council on numerous occasions, and it is 2.5 metres, which is what the guidelines stipulate. Now I note that a previous application for the outbuilding was refused and then went to appeal, and the appeal failed. You are saying that the adjustment you do now meets the terms of the appeal? I am sorry, I don't fully understand your questioning. Sorry, are you saying that the adjustment that you have made now, to the slight adjustment to the roof, means that it fits with what was required at the appeal? Given that I was given a lawful certificate, the property in terms of the outhouse, in terms of the footprint of it, is completely compliant with the lawful certificate. The issue was the height, and I have been fighting for the last five and a half years to establish exactly where it is that that height is measured from, and it has been concluded over three years ago that it was correct, because it is internal that that is where the highest measurement is from. I actually have an email from one of the planning officers who has got an MSC and a BSC confirming that I have built it correctly, and that there was nothing for me to worry about, and the neighbour had no cause for objection, and the Council should have passed the application. This case should have been closed back in 2021. An enforcement notice that was issued initially in 2019 only took one measurement that was from the outside on the street, never taken from the inside where the highest annihilation point is, and that was confirmed by the compliance enforcement officer that came out last year at the behest of the prosecution enforcement officer to give them the best that they can do with, and he actually turned around and said to me that there isn't anything for you to worry about, there is nothing wrong with this application, and he gave me the option of appealing, and that was the only thing that he gave to me. I was waiting for him to turn around and tell me what I needed to do, and he didn't tell me, the only thing he did was to turn around and tell me, my suggestion is that you make an arrangement, appeal this decision, otherwise non-compliance would mean that I would be prosecuted. So you appealed and the appeal was turned down? My appeal was turned down, well yes, but the thing is, what can I do? If you get somebody who comes along with a subjective view of an application, they come along. As I said to you, the crux of this matter is the footprint of the outhouse is in accordance with the lawful certificate that was issued. Thank you, I will ask the officers to comment on that, though I do notice that one of their reasons for refusal is not just the height, it's the size, height, and siting of the outbuilding, but I will ask officers to explain about the lawfulness or otherwise of that. Any further questions? Sorry, can I just say, I believe that I didn't need to even be in a position of having to appeal and go through the expense of appealing last time. I was given no choice, the compliance officer came out on site with the liaison officer at the behest of the prosecution enforcement officer and they turned around and told me that there wasn't anything for me to do, the only option I had was to appeal it. Thank you, that is some time ago, I don't know who those officers are. We are dealing with the report as it is now on the recommendations that the officers who are dealing with this now have put forward and taking into account the result of the appeal which failed. Thank you very much, I will ask officers to comment on this a bit more. Any further questions to the officers, other than explaining a bit more about the lawfulness or unlawfulness and the failure of the appeal and whether this meets conditions with that? Right, so the certificate that was issued some time back was issued on the basis of plans that didn't correctly illustrate the topography of the site. That was the first issue, as it happens the certificate ought not to have been made lawful anyway because the development extends forward as a principal elevation. But having issued a certificate under section 192 then you make that development conclusively presumed to be lawful unless there is a subsequent change in the material circumstances. Like I say, because of the initial issue that it wasn't drawn correctly it couldn't be relied upon anyway because it was impossible to realise the development that had been portrayed. So the certificate is essentially of no value, so then it becomes an issue of you can't make it lawful retrospectively. So again, that avenue of a full opposition is of no value, but then it becomes a question of whether or not it is acceptable in policy terms, which is the decision that was made pursuant to the retention applications and, like I outlined originally, they were all refused and all of the refusals have been upheld on appeal thus far. It's also required of the local authority, and they're at risk if they don't do it, to determine applications in accordance with not just the development plan but also taking into account previous appeal decisions in particular. The application recognises the amendments that are proposed but, like in our lines, it's not considered that they go far enough to address the issues that have been previously applied to the refusal, so hence we're not really in a position to recommend it for approval. Was there anything else in particular that you wanted to add? I'm sorry, you've finished with yours, thank you very much. This is my life we're talking about. Yes, you have finished your presentation, you've answered questions, thank you very much. You've had your time. I've forgotten what I was going to ask you now. You should come back to me, Councillor Carrick. Thank you. Part of this application is the extensions, the rear and side extensions, which appear to be put in to sort of indicate the garage or part of the garage. Can we separate them from the garage, so look at the extensions separately from the garage? I think so, this is one application, so even if there's one part we don't agree with, we're dealing with this application as a whole, we can't on this occasion agree part of it and not part of it. I think you can, if the committee was of the opinion that the extensions to the house were okay but the outbuilding wasn't, the application still needs to be refused but the terms of the refusal would need to be amended. So you can sort of have that, that's part of the motion, if you like, and then we rephrase the refusal reasons, and that would be agreed with the chair afterwards before the decision that is issued. Just the other thing is, I understand that the garage, as far as the planning department is concerned, doesn't comply even with the amendment to the slope. Is there any other alternative to the structure that the applicant could work with the council to amend the structure that would comply? Well, I don't think that's a question I can really answer here, or that would necessarily be appropriate to this particular discussion, but that's certainly a discussion that would need to be had with the enforcement officers, because they're the ones that will choose whether or not otherwise to ultimately prosecute the notice. But it's not a question for me to answer here now, but for them to discuss down the line. The first speaker, I can't remember your name, sorry, mentioned about in regards to the postcode indicating which side, can you just explain the officer's opinion on that? Yes, so for the purposes of planning, usually that would be the case, so in the technical guidance note for permitted development rights for householders, in the preface to that, it talks about definitions for the principal elevation, and it concedes that in the main, that would usually be the case. But where there's corner locations, then you have to take a view on a case-by-case basis. I mean, it specifically mentions, for example, porches forming part of the principal elevation, like that would be the elevation that would currently be understood, so it's not necessarily the case that a definition used in one part of the law is the same when it's applied to a different part of the law. If this house was in a different place, how much of this planning would it be able to receive on permitted development? So, if the principal elevation was the other flank of the house, then the footprint of the building, as built, may have been lawful, but not the height because of the topography, so not the entire building envelope. Thank you. Just two more points. On officers' understanding, the height is how much over? Possibly, well, so, it's not too far off the amended eave's height at the rear. I mean, that much is probably correct, because, confusingly, the relevant point for the height in this site, because of the way the levels of the land were, the bottom of where you would measure up from is within the garden of the host property, but the top point you'd be measuring to would be the equivalent height of the rear site. So, it's not like you just pick a bit and you measure that bit. You have to measure the relative height relative to a different point on the ground. So, it's not entirely straightforward, but not much different from that which is being proposed as the amendment. Thank you. Just a general point. Having been on site, I can't really say the reason why the size, height is disproportionate or the building is obtrusive, and a lot of what I've read in the report and some questions now seem quite technical and I don't understand, but being on site, it looked, it fitted in perfectly, and therefore, I will be voting against the recommendation. Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Roberts? Yes, you said that the certificates were issued in error. So, if we were to prove that, we're asking for it to go to appeal straight away in that case? No, I mean the issue of the certificate is irrelevant, effectively. The certificate was issued in error, but it couldn't have been realised anyway, and you can't make it lawful retrospectively, so it doesn't make any difference to the outcome. I mean, that question's been asked also in the pursuit of the previous appeals and dismissed by the Inspector. Right, any further comments or questions? Sorry, Councillor, do you have another question? Yes, I do. Thank you. Okay, so for the purpose of the record, when I say the certificate was issued in error, I mean that error was the error of the Local Planning Authority, but in any event, the plans depict something that could not be realised. But when I say an error in issuing it, it was our error in issuing it, because as was subsequently established at appeal, the outbuilding extends beyond the principal elevation, and so it can't be lawful by virtue of the restrictions within the Order itself. Sorry, just one question, please. No, I'm sorry, you've had your time. You've had plenty of time yourselves. Yes, we can have whatever time we want. I'm contesting the evidence that is being given here. The outbuilding elevation was actually established on the original drawings. The Council knew that that was the drawings that was there, that I said in my comment. Thank you, we heard your comment, thank you. If there's no more questions, we'll go to the vote. Now it seems to be quite complicated and to some extent there are two parts to this. This is one application. So, the application is as it stands for the extensions to the house and for the outbuilding. The officers are recommending refusal. All those in favour of refusal? Three, all those against refusal? One, one not voting. So that application is refused. Thank you very much. And we move on to the next item on the agenda, which is Fenton House in Hadley Green. Waste of time, waste of time. Bloody point of turning up or you're going to refuse it anyway. Thank you for really considering it. The last panel just really wouldn't even listen and I do appreciate you asking questions and considering it. Thank you. So this application relates to Fenton House and it basically involves the alterations and reconstruction of the main roof to basically include previous applications that have been approved. This is a two-storey single family dwelling house, which you can see in the bottom kind of centre image and also at the top here. So it was constructed in the 1980s in the mock Neo Georgian style and it's located within the Monk and Hadley conservation area. So you can see basically its location here along Hadley Green West and this is kind of a wider conservation area. So we have to the right here, we have Pimlico House, which is a grade two statutory listed property. It lies directly adjacent to the host site and so the property benefits from kind of large amenity space to the rear and also off street parking within the front forecourt. And it has been developed by virtue of a two-storey detached annex building and also outdoor pool and kind of pool house, which is extended along this northern boundary. And kind of when we look at the context of the surrounding area, properties tend to retain their original finish and this is kind of referenced in the character appraisal as well. So basically you have obviously the cream rendered listed property here, properties up here are kind of part rendered, but generally the kind of original finish with traditional features is maintained. So you can see the site photo here, so kind of as mentioned, it's constructed in a mock Neo Georgian style. It's of a red brick finish with traditional architectural detailing, such as brick coining, window detailing and surrounds. And the property is shown as being a positive building on the townscape appraisal map and this is such by virtue of its designation. It's recognised as making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Monk and Hadley conservation area. And the planning inspector as well has also upheld this view in recent appeal decisions to kind of determine that the existing unvented property is a positive contributor to the conservation area. And kind of within the Monk and Hadley conservation area character appraisal, when it kind of references these properties of Fenton House and kind of one surrounded and listed property, it talks about how they vary in style and quality of design, but they're attractive and remain largely altered and contribute positively to the conservation area. So you can see the existing plans here, so it kind of shows the property in its red brick finish. And then the proposed plans here, which incorporate the approved works and also it's worth noting there is a separate application pending consideration, kind of in relation to the combination of the approved works and with the addition of the white render façade, as you can see. So in terms of the key kind of issues for this case, it's worth noting that we have a C4 number of objectives. That's including from the Monk and Hadley Conservation Area Advisory Committee and the objective comments are kind of saying that the white render would kind of increase the prominence of visibility of the property. It's kind of out of character and would appear more obtrusive from front and back elevations. And heritage officers have also been consulted on the proposal and they have objected to any form of render at the site. So they're kind of against render in any form and consider it to have a harmful impact upon the character of the conservation area. So you can see here that any proposed rendering is considered to be unacceptable at the site. It's considered that the proposed white rendered façade would obscure the existing red brick finish and the architectural detailing, which are key characteristic features of a property and they contribute to its kind of positive building setting and also how it enhances the conservation area. So I think, yeah, the loss of these architectural features would have a harmful impact on the character of a wider conservation area. And it's also concerned that whilst it is set back from the front kind of street scene, it would conflict with and kind of compete with the appearance of a neighbouring listed property. So it's kind of at the moment, it's kind of set back and whilst the approved works have kind of increased the kind of bulk and mass of the property, given that it retains the existing red brick finish, it doesn't kind of appear prominent. Whereas it's considered that the white rendered façade would kind of increase the contemporary nature, the traditional kind of more setback nature of property would be eroded and it's considered that that would harm the conservation area. And also the inspector frequently upholds that even if a property isn't visible from the front in a conservation area, it can still kind of cause significant harm. Any kind of change to design can still have an impact on the character of the conservation area, whether they are kind of visible or not from the public realm. So yeah, kind of lead none from that. I mean, there hasn't been, little justification has kind of been provided as to why the rendering should be acceptable. There has been reference to improving the energy efficiency of the building, but Historic England have produced recent guidance on energy efficiency. And they have stated that where primary permission is required, the same approach should be taken to unlisted buildings and conservation areas as listed buildings. And that they wouldn't support external wall insulation, unlisted buildings or kind of within conservation areas. And also there's concern that by kind of a previous application, it would set a precedent for future development. So the potential future rendering of properties within conservation areas, not just limited to Monk and Hadley, but also other kind of conservation areas in the borough. And that that would kind of have a harmful detrimental impact upon kind of the conservation areas in this kind of surrounding area. So yeah, they're kind of a key points from this. Thank you. We don't have any speakers on this except for the agent, Scott Sampson. Mr Sampson here. Thank you. If you could introduce yourself and. Thank you. OK, when you're ready. Thank you very much. Good evening, chair members. My name is Andrew Scott and acting agent in connection with this application. I'm a childhood architect practicing for 47 years. I've also been a resident of Hadley Green for some 43 years. I remember Fenton House being constructed in the early 1980s. Fenton House is constructed of soft red facing bricks, incorporating a parapet on all elevations with brick coins built in a mock Neo Georgian style. There is a single objection to this application before you, which relates solely to the proposed render finish. Members will have now received the photos of the existing building, which I've handed out. These show existing brick detailing and illustrate some poor qualities. Different bricks have been used for the plinths, for the plinth base and the main facades. Sand cement fillets have been applied to the exposed brick coins to form a weathering detail to the porous bricks. The built quality is not so high standard. And materials have deteriorated over the 40 years since its construction. The proposed render will be a simple smooth finish with a single mid-level band, similar to other Georgian properties in the area. The officers' reports state that the render will result in the building becoming obtrusive, inharmonious and unsympathetic. Approximately half the buildings located in Hadley Green are rendered. Fenton House is probably the most inconspicuous building in the area, as it is sited some 50 metres back from the access drive and behind a green screen of trees and shrubs. You have one minute remaining. Thank you. As an example, adjoining is Pimlico House, a detached render dwelling that is only three metres back from the shared access drive and without any screening. The applicant feels that the officer's statement is unjustified and made without supporting evidence. This is not a heritage asset, it is not statutory or locally listed. It is considered that the proposal will provide a quality building in an unpretentious style which will integrate well with its surroundings. The applicants respectfully ask the committee to provide a favourable recommendation with a condition for the selected render colour to be agreed with the officers. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions? Yes, it's Catherine Roberts. I just want to establish your last point that you made. The applicant is prepared to consider the possible change in render colour. Yes, it was never asked of us to submit a colour and I think that is significant and I think if members are minded to allow this to go through this evening, we'd be happy to accept a condition that the colour is selected with the agreement of the officers. Okay, thank you. Yes, that's going to be my point as well. Any further questions? No, thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, so to the officers, all legal, it seems to be more about the colour of the render rather than anything else. So what are we able to say about that? That there should be a two agreement or can it be conditioned or if we were inclined to agree it with a change of colour, how would we address that? I think kind of the main issue of this application is that it's a consideration from heritage officers that actually external wall installation or kind of any render of any form would not be suitable at the site. So that's kind of what they're resisting. It's not specifically just the colour, obviously the white render is kind of contrary to the neighbouring listed property. However, it is just the addition of render in general, but it's going to kind of obscure them existing architectural details and actually it kind of takes away the kind of, although it's not a designated heritage asset, it is a positive building and that has been recognised through the LPA townscape appraisal. So although it's not a designated heritage asset, it is kind of recognised as a positive building. And that's kind of recognising the character appraisal in the kind of LPA townscape map and also recent kind of appeal decisions as well. The planning inspector has kind of upheld this. So it is recognised as making a positive contribution to the conservation area in its current form. And it's considered that any kind of form of render would change this kind of detriment, kind of contrary to polypsy, DMA6. Just to clarify one thing that is true, the building itself is not locally listed or statutory listed. But because it's a technical clarification, the conservation area within which it sits, that is a designated heritage asset. And so all development has to either preserve or enhance the character and appearance. And in the opinion of the heritage officer, the addition of render cumulatively to the other amendments does not do that. And that's why it's recommended for refusal. So it's not necessarily just about the building itself, whether or not it is intrinsic or otherwise. Thank you. So if we go to the vote on this, the officers are recommending refusal. All those in favour of refusal? Two. Those against refusal? Two. One not voting? So it's the chair's decision. And as chair, I support the officer's recommendation to refuse. So this application is refused and we move on to the next one. Now, I think. Are you going to present the next two together? They're sort of linked, so we can present the two together and then we'll vote on them separately. Good evening, committee and members of the public. This is the application at 79 Oakley Park North and Fairfield Oakley Park North. The two applications for the removal of three trees. The reason the applications before the committee tonight is there's a financial implication in the decision. Sorry, I think people in the public gallery are indicating that I can't hear you. Do you mind moving your... Is that better? Yeah. So there's a financial implication in the decision for the removal of the trees. There's a risk of compensation as a result of refusal and nine objections have been received in relation to the application. So the application is for the removal of one oak tree and one false acacia tree standing in the gardens of Fairfield and one false acacia tree located in the front garden of 79 Oakley Park North. This is the site location plan and you can see this is the location of the oak tree and these are the locations of the two TPO false acacia trees, one in the garden of 79 and one in the garden of Fairfield. This is the aerial image. This is the oak tree here and the two false acacia trees are here. This is the view from Oakley Park North and you can see this is the false acacia tree standing within Fairfield and subject to this application TPP 072023. This is trees in a poor quality. I think at some point in the past the crown failed and it's starting to regrow with new branches here and it's completely covered in ivy so it's quite difficult to determine its true condition but its contribution is fairly minimal. This is the second application TPP 072123 which is the tree located in the front garden of 79 Oakley Park North and the tree has been managed and maintained and has some contribution but not exceptional. And the oak tree has stood behind Fairfield here and that's subject to the application TPP 702023. This is a site photograph, a slightly different view but it shows the contribution of the oak tree to the street scene of Oakley Park North and you can see the tree which is growing in the front garden of 79. This is the view from behind Fairfield and this is the oak tree in its entirety. It's a very large mature oak tree. The oak is implicated in causing damage to the rear part of the block of flats and you can see the typical cracking of the brickwork going diagonally down through the building and it's repeated on the rear side flank as well so there's a sort of diagonal going down that way too. These are internal images of the damage provided by the applicant. There's damage around the windows, around the doorways and up into the ceilings. And there's also damage reported on the balcony on the first floor. This is the internal damage reported at the front of the building where the false acacia trees are alleged to have been causing movement and there's crack damage typical around the windows here and here and on external brickwork there's typical diagonal cracking. The applicants in recent months submitted an application for installation of a root barrier and the root barrier is located here shown by the white line. It's quite an extensive 50 metres of root barrier which would exclude tree roots growing towards the affected parts of the property at the front and rear. So that has been approved and the cost of that is estimated at around £91,000. Engineers have reviewed the technical data provided by the applicants and have found that the tree roots have caused some desiccation. The oak tree roots at the rear of the property are implicated in causing damage. Fairfield was built in 1972 before the guidelines for foundations and subsidence were issued so they were built probably to standard at the time. The damage there in the rear is recorded at level 3, category 3 which is fairly large cracks and probably at the front is category 2. The applicant has assessed for heave and found that the risk of heave is acceptable. So on balance the oak tree is implicated in causing subsidence to the rear and the acacia trees are implicated in causing damage to the front and that's both trees, one in Fairfield and one in the front garden of 79. The key considerations are for this is the oak tree is a very large high amenity tree. It's a very old tree, it's a large substantial size. The false acacia tree growing within Fairfield is in poor condition and will provide little long term visceral amenity. The false acacia tree growing within 79 has moderate value and provides some amenity to the street. All three trees are implicated in causing damage to Fairfield both at the front and rear. The agents have submitted an application for a root barrier and that was approved. The cost of that root barrier is quoted at 91,000. However, the solicitors for the applicants submitted a claim for damages on the 18th of October. And the outstanding claim for damages is for £80,000 should the application be refused, they would seek compensation to that level. So the recommendation, as usual, we haven't provided a direct recommendation for the trees. It's for the members to determine whether the risk of loss and loss of amenity against the information provided is acceptable. But there are two decisions to make. One for the trees growing in Fairfield, which is TPP072023 for the removal of the oak tree and false acacia tree. The decision could be split between the oak and the false acacia tree if the members were minded to do so. And then the recommendation for the false acacia tree growing at 79 Oakley Park North can be determined as normal. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We have Councillor Schneiderman down as a speaker, but I don't see him here so I don't think he's going to speak. So we have the agent Jackie Gumsley. No, there are no speakers on this. Can we just have some discussion or confirmation about this claim for £80,000 for compensation. I'm not aware in similar situations where we we've refused consent for trees that such claims have been put in so could we have some information about what this is, why it is and how likely it is. Because there's been some delay in determining the application. The solicitors saw that because the application hadn't been decided within the eight week period, it was deemed refusal. And on that basis they've submitted a claim that the council's, that the application is deemed a refusal. Do you think we could have some legal advice on the likelihood of this on the implications for the council? So? Do you think we could have some legal advice on the implications for the council of this? The compensation if we're likely to pay, if the council is likely to be liable for £80,000 if we refuse this. So the question is what the implications are if a claim such as this was to be successful. And obviously that would depend on the merits of the case. And if it was a successful claim, obviously the council would have to pay compensation. Thank you. If we were to split the oak tree and the false acacia at the one location and decided to grant the removal of those trees, would that substantially reduce the amount of root barrier required and therefore substantially reduce the amount of liability required. Or the amount of liability we may possibly have. That would be a fair assumption, I'll go back up to the plan. So there's the location of the root barrier. The acacia trees are here, so they may be able to foreshorten the root barrier, just to sort of to isolate the house and the tree together. So it will be significantly smaller amount of works, what that value is I couldn't say, but it will be less. Any comments or questions? Yes, Councillor Carrick. I propose that we do split the oak tree and the false acacia. How do we, how do we propose to vote on this? Do we have to propose a different thing without just approving? Okay, Councillor Carrick, would you like to propose a motion that we refuse permission for the oak tree but agree for the false acacia in the first? If you, so Councillor Carrick is proposing a motion to split the decision. So if somebody seconds that. I will second it. And then if you vote on that, if you vote against that recommendation, then it would default back to the original recommendation, which you can also vote either in favour of or against. Yeah, we need, we need to just check legally what we're doing here so we can take five minutes or so to get confirmation of the legality of this. We're in the meeting now. I think we have clarification on the procedure for this. Councillor Carrick has proposed that we split the decision on item 11 TPP0721-23. Sorry, it's TPP0720-23. Oh, sorry. Yeah. TPP0720-23. We split the decision. That's the one that concerns two trees, the oak tree and the false acacia. So you're proposing that you refuse permission for removal of the false acacia, but refuse permission for removal of the oak tree. Is that correct? That's correct. And I second that proposal. All those in favour of that proposal? That's all. So we now need to vote on the other application 0721, which is for the one false acacia in the garden of 79. So there's no recommendation for this. So we're voting either for removal of the tree or for retaining the tree. So those in favour of removal of the tree? For those in favour of retaining a tree? One. So we have voted to remove that tree or to allow that tree to be removed. So I think that's everything on tonight's agenda.

Transcript

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. It's past seven o'clock so we're going to start the meeting now. Could we have some quiet in the public gallery please and start the meeting. My name is Claire Farrier, I'm chair of this planning committee. Just make sure I switched on. Can you hear now? Is that better? OK, yeah, I think we've turned the speakers on better. Yeah, I think the speakers at the back have been turned on. I say thank you very much for attending this evening. I will ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves and then the planning officers and legal officer and governance officer. So my name is Claire Farrier, chairing this committee. I'm a councillor for East Binchley. Councillor Roberts. Councillor Arjun Mitra, member for East Binchley Ward. Councillor Wyant-Culley, member for Coneydale South Ward. Councillor Joshua Conway, Henven Ward. Jonathan Mills, planning manager at Terese. Kate Foster, planning officer. Edith Lones, senior planner. Jonathan Mills, planning manager at Terese. Well, yeah, we'll try and speak closely into the microphones and we're trying to get the speakers seen to at the back. So if we can carry on. Mark Spinkthorpe, planning manager. Good evening. Hi, dear Osgoode, planning manager. Tina Froheji, legal advisor. Good evening. Farah Hossain, governance officer and clerk to the committee. Thank you. Now, we ask that you remain seated during the meeting unless you're called to the table to address the committee. And please note that the meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in-law and by the council. By attending, either in person or online, you may be picked up on recordings. And the council recordings are covered by our privacy notice, which can be found on our website. Now, for each application, the planning officer will present the application. The speakers will then have three minutes each to address the committee. And you'll be told when you have a minute left. Then there's the opportunity for members of the committee to ask you questions. And following that, the committee will discuss and determine the application. And we will announce the decision. So, if we move on to the agenda, I've got the minutes of the last meeting, which was on the supplementary agenda, everything that. I'm pretty happy with the minutes of the last meeting. Abstinence of members. Councillor, do you want to speak? Councillor Greenspan has been taken to hospital this evening. Councillor Simberg may be on his way. Okay, thank you. All the other members of the committee are here. Any declaration of interests? No, and there's no dispensations granted. Everybody has seen the addendum that was sent out and published this afternoon. And so, moving on to the first application on the agenda, which is the Church Hall of St Mary the Virgin in Barnet. Thank you, Chair. So, the item is involving Church Hall at St Mary the Virgin Church of England in Camden Way. The proposal involves demolition and rebuild of the existing two-storey Church Hall. Members would recall this application was heard at the 9th of October committee meeting. It was called in by Councillor Weisel on Heritage Grounds. After discussions, a motion was moved that the application be minded to approve and the application was deferred to next meeting for determination on the grounds that the benefits of a new Church Hall to the local community outweighed the harm listed in the officer's report and that the redevelopment would fit the character of the local area. So, for clarity, where an application is recommended for refusal and the committee is minded to approve the application, the item is deferred to the next meeting to enable re-notification to take place and to give an opportunity for objectors to the application and the applicant to attend the subsequent meeting and make representations and for a re-hearing of the application to take place. So, this is in accordance with the council's constitution. So, the application has been brought back to this committee with suggested conditions. In the event the committee overturned the officer's recommendation, the applicant's agent has had cite and agreed to suggested conditions which are attached as an appendix to the report. So, the Church Hall is outlined in red and is set within the grounds of the Grade 2 star listed parish church, therefore forms part of the church curtilage. There is no boundary between the actual Church Hall and the church itself. The site is within the green belt and Monckenhati Conservation Area. It is within an area of archaeological significance and is covered by an Article 4 direction. The common opposite is at this location here and it's a site of importance for nature conservation. Church Hall is locally listed and previous extensions have been granted, however the applicant states that the foundations are not sound enough to restore the original building. So, this is the proposed site plan. The redevelopment of the Church Hall would be approximately one metre deeper and one metre wider and it is also one metre set in from this boundary or its original position. The extensions would be a single storey to the south side and two storey to the north and would be a two storey building. So, these are the site photographs. Again, more site photographs. This is a view from the common and this is the rear elevation of the hall facing the Grade 2 star church building. Again, more site photos. These are the existing plans and sections and these are the existing elevations. Proposed elevations and section. You will note on the existing elevation there's a limited number of windows. On the proposed there are five windows at ground level and six windows at first floor level facing the church graveyard. These are the proposed elevations. As you will see, two storey to the north side and a single storey to the south. The fact that the property falls within the green belt, it has to comply with the volume calculations. So, the volume proposed on this proposal would be approximately 26.6 cubic metres which is over the allowance stated within the residential design guidance. So, this is a proposed CGI of what the building would look like and these are the proposed plans. Again, this is a proposed plan. It's a comparison. It's an overlay of the existing over the, sorry, the proposed over the existing footprint. As you can see, the red line is what's existing there at the minute and the proposal is the black lines. So, one metre further forward and one metre deeper on the sides. Okay, existing and proposed site plan. These are just volume calculations. Heritage officers have objected on the grounds that there would be substantial harm to non-designated heritage assets through the demolition and significant harm to Grade 2 star listed church building and harm the conservation area. Heritage officers also comment that church house makes a good contribution to the setting of the curtilage of the listed church building and the proposal adds significant number of windows to the west elevation. So, the proposal would result in an unbalanced design that would increase the number of window openings allowing direct views into the church yard. As noted in the planning history of the site, extensions has previously been approved. However, as mentioned earlier on, the applicants have not provided sufficient justification to say why the extension cannot be restored as it stands and why a demolition is required. I have nothing further to add to the report. We did have a speaker this evening, Councillor Farrier, but I believe he's unable to attend. We've got representations to read out. Thank you. Thank you. We had an objector who didn't speak last time, Guy Braithwaite, another AP sent, something you're going to read out. This is a statement from Guy Braithwaite. I have been invited to speak at the planning committee about the proposal to demolish Moncken Hadley Church Hall and replace it with a new hall on the same site. I'm sorry to say I am unable to come this evening owing to illness. I support the ultimate objective of Moncken Hadley Church and the restoration committee to provide a hall and facilities fit for the community's needs. However, it is my view that, and that of the planning officer, that the case is not made, that the present building could not be stabilised and repaired. Thereby enabling it to be extended and refitted for modern use. In the absence of an options appraisal assessing the feasibility and cost of remedial work as opposed to rebuild, the case for demolition is not made. Since the last meeting, the applicant has invited me and colleagues from the Barnet Society to a meeting on site to discuss the proposals. It's a shame that this has not been possible for that to happen before tonight's meeting, but I do look forward to any possibility of finding a better outcome than the demolition of a locally listed building. The officer's report recommending refusal hasn't changed since the last meeting, nor has any new evidence been put forward. Agreeing it now would set a bad precedent for locally listed buildings and conservation areas. We need to ensure that demolitions of heritage assets are not agreed without a sound case being made. That's essential for protecting Barnet's heritage as well as its environment. Thank you, Ms Braithwaite. Ms Braithwaite isn't here, we're not able to ask him any questions on his statement. We have Councillor Weiser, do you wish to speak again? Either speak again or just answer any further questions. Thank you, Chair. I wasn't planning to speak again unless the committee had any further questions from last time. I'm aware, I think, that Councillor Mitchell wasn't here last time, if he had any questions. Councillor Caddick. Thank you. My question is to reinforce the officer's question about proving the viability of restoring the original building. They feel that they have not had sufficient evidence to prove it's not viable. Is there anything you can add to that? I know that this was obviously answered by the agent at the last meeting, and I know from conversations that I've had with the Churchill committee and information that's been provided to me in the past, that the cost of rebuilding what is already there would be twice what is, roughly twice what is currently estimated for demolishing and building a new, and obviously building a new would allow them to slightly move it off the waterway that is running underneath part of the building and making the foundations unstable, which would help secure the building for the future. That is my understanding. Obviously, the technical, much more technical detail was covered by the agent at the last meeting. The questions? No, thank you very much. We have the agent, Alan Cox. Mr Cox here. No, I think the agent is not speaking again, if we can remember, but he did speak last time and address those issues of viability of the building. So we come back to the officers now. Any comments or questions, further questions for the officers? Councillor Carrick. Have you had any further dialogue concerning the viability of retaining the existing hall? No, no further dialogue has been taken place. Okay. Councillor Roberts. Just wanted to check. Do you accept that the building in its current condition is not fit for purpose? Well, we haven't actually said that. The applicant has said that in its current situation, it's not sound enough for extensions to be implemented to the existing building because the foundations are not safe enough. So hence the reason why it would be more viable for the existing church building to be demolished and rebuilt. If I can just confirm, because we indicated that we may like to approve this application, the last one, you've come back with conditions. Did you say that these have been seen and okayed by the - although I know they don't need to, we can put conditions on as we want - but the applicant is okay with the conditions? Yes, so the conditions are attached as an appendix to the report and which should be within the agenda items. So there's a number of pre-commencement conditions that needs to be agreed with the applicant and that's been agreed. So we have emailed the suggested conditions to the agent and he has confirmed that he's in agreement. Thank you. Has anybody got any questions about the conditions or comments about the conditions that may be put on this? No, so if we go to a vote on this, the officers are recommending refusal. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation to refuse? One. And those against the officer's recommendation to refuse? So if somebody would like to propose approval, with the reasons for approval. And a seconder? Councillor Callick. And the reasons, he gave the reasons last time, that the community benefit, sorry, the community benefit, the harm that may be done. So all those in favour of approving with those terms and with the conditions that are in the report? For against? One. Thank you very much. That application is approved with the conditions that were added. And we move on to the next item, which is 7 Northfield Road. Hi, good evening, councillors and members of public. I'm here to present an application for a change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a Class C2 children's home for the care up to three children at 7 Northfield Road. So the application site is a two-storey semi-detached house on the northwestern side of Northfield Road. The area is predominantly residential in character. So it's situated on a corner plot and has previously been extended. So these are the area photos. Site photos showing that they have got a rear garden of about 130 square metres and to the front there is on-site parking for two car parks. There's no external alterations, but mainly regarding to internal changes, ground floor will be converted to reception and play area. And for the first floor plan, there will be three children's homes sized 10.8 square metres to about 14 square metres, which is considered quite spacious. And there will be two staff working area. So the key arguments of this application is whether the use of a children's care home would materially impact the character of the area by virtue of the number of coming and goings and any associated impact in terms of noise and safety. So the applicant has submitted additional information regarding staff arrangement. There will be likely coming and goings happened at 7am and latest at 10.30. So the proposal is unlikely to result in an intensification of the use beyond that expected of a single household. So again, this is similar approach to the recently granted permission at 49 St. James and Asian House. Just a key note that the area itself is quite poorly accessible as it has a PTA of 1B. However, the needs have been substantially justified. Say the house is about 15 to 18 minutes walk from Cots Foster and New Barnet underground. And also in terms of safety, map police were consulted and there are some numbers of risk management strategy has been further submitted in order to provide mitigation measures to safeguard the children and also lower the impact to the disturbance to the neighbour. So therefore, on balance, the needs has been justified and also the harm to the character and neighbouring amenities are unbalanced acceptable. Therefore, officers is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Thank you. Thank you. We have one object, Jay Welland, Mr Welland, if you'd like to come forward. Let's take a seat and turn the microphone on. There's a button with a face on it. Thank you. And then if you can introduce yourself and you have three minutes to speak, you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Thank you. My name is John Welland. I just must explain to you, I have been diagnosed with vote cancer in the last month, so I hope that you'll give me some leeway. As you can see, I have a slight problem with my speech. Just a second. Can we start the clock when he starts, rather than include the preamble? I'm ready. First of all, with regard to this, I'd like to talk about money, finance. This is a for profit, not Dr Bernardo's, a for profit care home with three children. The income of which could be in excess of a million pounds. With regard to finance for the residents, it could mean a reduction in their property value of anywhere between 10% to 20%. When you're selling a property, you must declare any adverse events or project that can be against someone wishing to buy a property. Our most important worry is antisocial behaviour. The possibility of antisocial behaviour is best described in the application by Sunray Sanctuary. We're talking about security. They say that security is a protection against external threats such as relative income. Also gang members are identified as a possibility that can become a problem with the care home. I cannot believe that the planning committee of Barnet Council will allow this to be dumped in the middle of a peaceful family area. Not to mention a brand new nursery of 100 places within 150 yards of the property. I'd also like to state now we should have had two speakers. One of you could have spoken about problems with the property. No other speakers came forward. We could have another speaker if one had come forward, but I don't think anyone came forward. So if you could just briefly summarise now. You've come to the end of your three minutes. To summarise on behalf of the residents, this will not be the end of our objections. And to be perfectly fair to the project, I think you will be seeing legal action either by a group or by individuals. Unfortunately my medical condition doesn't allow me to enlarge any further. You could just wait a minute and see if there's any questions. Anybody have any questions? No? Thank you very much. You can return to your seat if you prefer to what you had said. No questions, Councillors. What I would say is that some of the concerns you raised, I think the applicant and/or the agent are going to speak. We will ask the applicant to confirm some of the things that you said. So next we have the applicant, Mrs Henry, or the agent that showed us. So you're the applicant, you're going to be running the home so you can answer some of the questions. Yes, sure, can you hear me? Okay, thank you. Say if you can introduce yourself and you'll have three minutes to speak and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Yes. Hi, can you hear me properly? Hi, my name is Hag Henry. I have been an officer register commander for the past seven years. And for several years, it has been my aspiration to establish a children care home. Over the last two years, I have actively pursued this dream, working diligently to bring it to fruition. We can accommodate up to maximum three young people. The same children will use the positive provided. We can accommodate three cars in our private driveway. The visits to the care home are not very frequent and can easily be managed by scheduling the visits. We aim to create a safe and nurturing environment, enabling children to recover from past trauma and grow to achieve their full potential. We work with therapeutic parenting approach, which is key in caring for those who have experienced neglect, abuse, significant development trauma in the early years. We were chosen this property because local risk assessment is positive. The size and layout of the property, surrounding of the property, house features, five double bedroom and a study, a spacious living room, three bathroom with shower toilet and sink, a large kitchen with dining room, a garden, a private driveway at the front of the house that can accommodate three cars. The three children will have their own double size bedroom with plenty of space for bed, wardrobe, desk in a family style arrangement. This five bedroom property has a home-like atmosphere compared to a larger home. It is a smaller setting and it will accommodate only three young people, which can be beneficial for them as well as for the workers. Some researchers believe in promoting equality, valuing diversity and working inclusively. The management strategies for ensuring the safety of the children and the wider community at 7 Northfield Road includes comprehensive staff training, robust policies and procedures, secure environment and a child-centric approach. The children care home will be fully secured and comply with health and safety regulations. If you are in care, your local authorities, your corporate parents, this means they should act like loving parents would and provide with the best possible support. UK Parliament statement by Richard McLean, the planning system should not be a barrier to providing homes for most vulnerable children. Also stated, to support effective delivery, unitary authorities should work with commissioners to access local need and to closely engage the support application. We believe this property is situated in a lovely, quiet, residential area. It could be the perfect, stable, loving home for free children who need it at the most, where the individual needs can be met. This is the right home in the right place. This is a unique opportunity where we can provide a stable, safe and loving home for free young people. This is your opportunity to closely engage to support this application. That's time. Thank you. Right, thank you. I wonder, you heard Mr Welland and his concerns about the children who may be in this home and the anti-social behaviour that may result. So I wonder if you can mention how that would be managed. I saw your staffing regulations, it's going to be one-to-one staffing. So I assume it will be suitable supervision at all times, but I wonder if you can comment on how you manage any possible anti-social behaviour. Yes, the care home will have strict protocols in place. We will comply with all relevant legal requirements. As I mentioned, the management strategies for ensuring safety of the children, we will have comprehensive staff training, robust policies and procedures to follow, a secure environment and a child-sensitive approach. We have a lot of policies, including safeguarding policy, behaviour management policy. At Sunway Sanctuary, we follow therapeutic parenting, informed approach to working with children. We promote an emotional connection between the child and the adult, increase the child's sense of security and trust. We will have basically a lot of policies to follow. Presumably you will be registered and regulated by Ofsted? Staff training will include protection, safeguarding policy first, emergency response. The staff will give therapeutic parenting training as well. So we are promoting the children positive behaviour and teach them how to be positive. The gang members, it's only saying if somebody turns up and frets the children, then the staff will be trained how to react, but it's not necessarily going to happen. Usually there are no issues because we are only accommodating a maximum of three children with a staff member ratio one-to-one, never forward behind, or even more staff members for one child. So it's always going to be supervised correctly, which is not going to allow the children to do any bad behaviour. And that's how it's therapeutic parenting to teach them how to be positive in reaction to other people and for the community. So it's all kind of make sure it's the safety of the community. Yeah, thank you. Mr. Whelan spoke here, but we saw from the objections that came in that other people have similar concerns. So are you going to be able to make a contact number available to local people in case they have any concerns when there's an operation they can raise with you? I mean, it's not strictly a planning matter, that I must say, but it's just from the point of view of the neighbours that are they going to be able to contact you if they have any concerns? Sorry, do I need to answer any more question? As I say, that's not strictly a planning matter, but from the point of view of the concerns that have been raised. OK. It's how you would respond to those. Are you going to be able to provide a contact number for people if they raise concerns when their home is in operation? They're hardly here because it's the... Sorry, yes. Yes, sure. So keep them up. OK, thank you. I would like to add, like, we understand the concern, but this will be only for children. It's like a small family. Yes. We're not here to make any nuisance or any disturbance. We aim to make sure it's not a disturbance whatsoever to the neighbourhood. Councillor Califf. Thank you. The report notes that the Met Police have reviewed your documents, which I assume is your policies as well. So I don't have any concerns about that, but what I would like to know is what experience you've had in managing a children's home. Do you have management? That's not a planning matter. OK. That's up to Ofsted when they register and regulate the service to deal with that. I hope this is a relevant question. How long do your carers normally resident for? How many years? Are they there for an extended period of time? OK, we have a very high expectation for the staff. They have to be the right experience, skills and experience. So all the qualifications have to be... we have to go through Ofsted registration and we have to comply with the legal requirement. And as one of the legal requirements, they have to have relevant qualifications, otherwise we can't open in the first place. If they meet this qualification, on average, and I appreciate it's not an absolute figure, but how long would they stay in place? Well, we try to aim for a small minimum of turnover and make sure the staff and children, everybody happy and not making any disturbance to the neighbourhood. Sorry, you're asking about the children who are going to be living there, how long they'll be there? No, I'm talking years. It depends, but we make sure they are happy so they stay as long as possible because the less turnover is the better for the children. Is that the question? Because we haven't got the staff yet, we have to go through Ofsted registration first. I'm wondering, on average, how long do the carers stay in place? If they're happy, four years. Okay, fine, that's the answer I was after. Thank you. Any more questions, Councillor Conway? There's a clear demand in Barnet for family housing. What demand or what data do you have to show there's a need for this within this area? Sorry, can you repeat the question? There's a clear demand in Barnet for family houses. This would take away a family house. What demand is there? What data do you have to show that there's a demand for this sort of home within Barnet? Okay, the demand is high, the waiting time at least six months, and they're placing children quickly miles away, really miles away or more from their environment, which, as Rachel McLean stated, it's good for the children to be staying with family and friends in the same environment. So it's a very high demand, I would say. Any more questions? No, thank you very much. Any questions for the officers or comments? I would like to comment that we do know as Councillors that there is a big shortage of children's homes and a need for children's homes, and children's services are themselves trying to create a number of these. Those of us who are on the corporate parenting committee know that there's a particular demand for homes for children with emotional needs, who are very often placed far away from the borough and far away from their family's any contact. So I'm not saying that this home would be used, it depends how it's assessed by the council when it's open, whether we would place children there, but there is a big need for this type of home. So if there's no further comments, we'll go to the vote. The officer's recommendation is to approve. All those in favour? That's all. That application is approved. Thank you. And the next item on the agenda is 78 Kings Drive, Edgware. Okay, so this application relates to the proposed erection of a part single storey, part two storey side and rear extension, together with the retention of an existing unlawful outbuilding. The property sits in a permanent location on the inside of a perpendicular bend in Kings Drive, forming part of the original planned layout and constitutes the end of a symmetrical grouping of eight properties. What's going on here? The existing outbuilding sits to the side and adjacent to the boundary with number 76 and fronting the highway. Planning permission for its retention has already been refused three times, is subject to an extant enforcement notice and has been dismissed on appeal twice. The ground floor footprint would extend to a depth of 3.5 metres to the rear and project greater than half the width of the existing dwelling to the side, whilst at first floor level would extend 2.5 metres to the side. Whilst of a relatively modest footprint at first floor level, the proposal would further extend beyond the return building line, contrary to the expectations of the design guidance of SPD, and similarly would not be set down from the ridgeline or back from the other flank of the building, appearing overly dominant to the modest proportions of the original property and unbalancing the symmetry of both the pair and the grouping as a whole, again, contrary to the expectations of the SPD. In respect of the outbuilding, it is proposed to retain the building whilst incorporating an alteration to lower the height of the rear elevation by 0.3 metres for a depth of 0.7 metres, leaving it 2.8 metres in height along the common boundary with number 76. With regard to the previous reason for refusal, this modest amendment is not considered to overcome the harm to amenity, or to materially reduce the impact of the outbuilding in the street scene that results from its scale and prominent siting. On that basis, the application is recommended for refusal. Thank you. We have two speakers registered for this, both in support of the application, I believe, Nigel Saffrey and Emma Catamal. Are either of those here? I don't know which order you want to speak in if you're both here. Thank you. If you can take a seat and put the microphone on. There's a button on the microphone with a face on it. You can see that. If you can introduce yourself, you'll have three minutes to speak. You'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. OK, thank you. My name's Emma Catamal. I'm one of the neighbours, and I'd like to give this application my full approval. I think that putting a pitched roof on the existing garage is a great idea, as it does rectify the height issue, and it keeps costs down and minimises unnecessary building disruption to the neighbours. It is more eco-friendly to make a small adjustment to an existing building than it is to completely demolish it unnecessarily to build a new one. And as I'm sure we'd all agree, we're all trying to do our bit to be as eco-friendly as possible. And lowering the roof from one side is a great compromise as it resolves the height issue and still enables him to keep his tall work van inside, allowing more parking for residents and keeping his van and tools more secure from thefts. And it avoids creating an eyesore for some neighbours who apparently hate looking at vans parked on the street. I live at number 66, Kings Drive, and like us, his entrance door is on the side of his house, but because his property is on a corner, there's been some confusion over which side is the front elevation. As I understand it from a legal perspective, the front elevation is determined by which postcode is used for an address. HA8 8EF is the postcode. His property was legally allocated. Therefore, there's no question that from an official standpoint, his front elevation must be where his bay window is and not where his entrance door is. He has got a porch on the side of his house, but that feature was there when he first bought the property. He's not changed or added on to that. So from the day his house was sold to him with the existing porch in place, it was classed as an HA8 8EF postcode, which relates to the house's bay window and the properties that run in line with his. Plus, the original application to build the existing garage was approved, so I don't see how the front elevation is suddenly in question. His garage is forward of the side elevation, which is completely legal and correct. I think the plans for his extension are great. It makes sense to move the entrance door to the front elevation where the bay window is, as the existing porch is really old, is drafty and has no insulation, so that part of the house needs upgrading. You have one minute left. Thank you. It also resolves any future confusion over which side the front is. And on a personal level, the red tape that's been going on with this for so many years delaying this build has been a massive cause of stress and anxiety to the applicant. He's been battling depression for many years. His mental health has really suffered because of all of this. And if this application is refused again, the financial stress and emotional damage this could do really concerns me. I know it's just another item on your itinerary, but please, it's easy to look at people as numbers sometimes. But this is someone's life and this is going to be massively affecting. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And I hope I hope you will realise from hearing that we don't treat people as numbers. We do fully take everything into into account. Oh, good. Thank you. Are there any questions from the speaker? Councillor Roberts. I just want to establish, is the proposed extension, is that in keeping with the rest of the road? Yes, it looks really nice. He's used the same brickwork and it's been there for many years now. And everyone, there's a lot of support in the neighbourhood. If you see all the people for it, everyone's really keen on it staying as it is or just being lowered slightly to appease the height. Is it keeping again with the size of the other properties in that road? It's on the corner, so it doesn't really affect the other properties too much. Is it still part of the road? Of course, of course. Yeah, the garage does come forward, as you can see from the pictures, but it doesn't affect anything. Any more questions for the speaker? No, thank you very much. Thank you for listening. And is Mr. Saffery here? So we have Councillor Mering Smith would like to speak. I think you know the procedure. If you can put the microphone on, you have three minutes to speak. Thank you very much, Chair. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Obviously, I'm the Councillor for Edgware, Nick Mering-Smith. I've asked for this to be brought to the committee for some very specific reasons. I feel this is an application that has been bedevilled by poor advice from professional advisors. It has caused huge problems for the applicant. The actual location of this site on a corner is very similar to two other sites on corners along King's Drive, which I've personally looked at two or three times now, and doesn't seem to me the proposal is any more significantly out of keeping than the other two sites at number 81 or number 156. Clearly, there can be disagreements about this. One of the concerns I have is that in the application response in the papers, it points out that there was no pre-application consultation. I noticed that this is the case of another application this evening. What I've been told is that professional advisors are advised not to go for pre-application consultation, because it seems to have very little effect in the final outcome of the application. I'm not sure whether this is correct or not, but I think it's certainly something the Planning Department needs to look at, because ideally people would go for pre-application consultation and then have a much smoother process of going through. This particular site has been bedevilled by these problems of the height of the garage, partly, and the location. There was a garage, a sort of structure, exactly on the position of the outbuilding as of now. Unfortunately, nobody has retained a photo of it, because obviously it was demolished some years ago. The height of the building should be two and a half metres allowed from the highest point of the grounds surrounding it. Unfortunately, that was never put in the original application for a certificate, when it should have been a planning application. You have one minute remaining. Thank you. I therefore feel that because of the problems that have surrounded this, and the fact that the principal objector would be number 76, who has withdrawn his objection and is now supportive of this whole application, I believe it's one of these where the committee could justifiably consider not following the officer's recommendation, but actually approving this particular application. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? No. Thank you very much, Councillor. And then we have either the applicant or the agent. Mr Pritel or Mr Avani. Thank you, and if you again, if you could introduce. I'm the applicant for the application that's been made, Mr Avani, for number 78 King's Drive. Can you hear me OK? Lovely. All right. Good evening, committee members. This application is to primarily apply for permission to extend my house due to its location and roof pitch. I am unable to do much in the way of loft or side extensions through permitted development rights to make it into a family home. The site allows for proposed development without impacting on amenity or character. This application for the house extension and garage is what I had wanted to be submitted in 2019, but my architect mistakenly submitted a separate application for the outhouse, resulting in a lawful certificate being granted, signed by the service director. This application in relation to the garage built in 2019 is what was offered as a compromise by the prosecution enforcement officer in 2022 after having discussed it with her colleagues. But she left the council before I was able to conclude the matter with her. Under threat of prosecution, I have tried to come to find to find a compromise as I'm not wanting to be taken to court. Despite being told on numerous occasions that the garage has been built correctly, I feel that the previous refusals are now depriving me of being able to grant anything which would allow investment and improvement to make my home into a family home. I have worked hard and safe to be able to stay in the neighbourhood where I have made many friends and refuse to be driven from my home, but I wish to improve my home by way of regenerating in my neighbourhood. Several applicants within a 500-yard radius of my house have been granted similar approvals. This application has the unprecedented support of the neighbourhood by going online to show their support. The enforcement, which is over a few inches in height, will make no difference if I am pushed to reduce it but will financially cripple me. Demolition of what has been built is so harsh a punishment, despite the case being recommended for closure in September 2021. I built the garage to house my van following numerous break-ins and damage by hit-and-run drivers. It allows me to make a living and my work life is here. All I want is to improve my home and working life. I am a self-employed, hard-working man who is struggling to make a living having gone through five years of hell. My mental and physical health have taken a hammering and with not being able to sleep properly due to the stress and anxiety, to the point of having had suicidal thoughts on numerous occasions. I ask you to please question me about this application or the previous one submitted as they will shape my life from here on. Thank you. Any questions? Members, Councillor Roberts? I just want to ask you, have you considered reducing the height of that garage? That is what the compromise that I have actually submitted, which was in conjunction with this request made by the prosecution officer in 2022, is exactly what I have actually submitted in the application that has been submitted. The compromise, there was actually never an issue with regards to the size of the garage, it was always the height, and the issue was where the highest adjacent point is measured from. The Council had been out in September 2021, the Deputy Enforcement Manager and the Enforcement Officer, along with Mr Joe Henry, who was the previous Head of Planning Law at the Council, came out, took measurements, and deemed that it was only approximately nine centimetres over on the backside, which is what I am proposing to cut, and they recommended that their place be closed. And I am now, three years or more now, still fighting this ridiculous situation. I don't know what to do. I have submitted an application, which is to cut the corner off and reduce the height on the backside, if only to make arrangements and, you know, concede something. It's built correctly because the highest adjacent point is the internal garden ground level of the property, and that is measured by the Council on numerous occasions, and it is 2.5 metres, which is what the guidelines stipulate. Now I note that a previous application for the outbuilding was refused and then went to appeal, and the appeal failed. You are saying that the adjustment you do now meets the terms of the appeal? I am sorry, I don't fully understand your questioning. Sorry, are you saying that the adjustment that you have made now, to the slight adjustment to the roof, means that it fits with what was required at the appeal? Given that I was given a lawful certificate, the property in terms of the outhouse, in terms of the footprint of it, is completely compliant with the lawful certificate. The issue was the height, and I have been fighting for the last five and a half years to establish exactly where it is that that height is measured from, and it has been concluded over three years ago that it was correct, because it is internal that that is where the highest measurement is from. I actually have an email from one of the planning officers who has got an MSC and a BSC confirming that I have built it correctly, and that there was nothing for me to worry about, and the neighbour had no cause for objection, and the Council should have passed the application. This case should have been closed back in 2021. An enforcement notice that was issued initially in 2019 only took one measurement that was from the outside on the street, never taken from the inside where the highest annihilation point is, and that was confirmed by the compliance enforcement officer that came out last year at the behest of the prosecution enforcement officer to give them the best that they can do with, and he actually turned around and said to me that there isn't anything for you to worry about, there is nothing wrong with this application, and he gave me the option of appealing, and that was the only thing that he gave to me. I was waiting for him to turn around and tell me what I needed to do, and he didn't tell me, the only thing he did was to turn around and tell me, my suggestion is that you make an arrangement, appeal this decision, otherwise non-compliance would mean that I would be prosecuted. So you appealed and the appeal was turned down? My appeal was turned down, well yes, but the thing is, what can I do? If you get somebody who comes along with a subjective view of an application, they come along. As I said to you, the crux of this matter is the footprint of the outhouse is in accordance with the lawful certificate that was issued. Thank you, I will ask the officers to comment on that, though I do notice that one of their reasons for refusal is not just the height, it's the size, height, and siting of the outbuilding, but I will ask officers to explain about the lawfulness or otherwise of that. Any further questions? Sorry, can I just say, I believe that I didn't need to even be in a position of having to appeal and go through the expense of appealing last time. I was given no choice, the compliance officer came out on site with the liaison officer at the behest of the prosecution enforcement officer and they turned around and told me that there wasn't anything for me to do, the only option I had was to appeal it. Thank you, that is some time ago, I don't know who those officers are. We are dealing with the report as it is now on the recommendations that the officers who are dealing with this now have put forward and taking into account the result of the appeal which failed. Thank you very much, I will ask officers to comment on this a bit more. Any further questions to the officers, other than explaining a bit more about the lawfulness or unlawfulness and the failure of the appeal and whether this meets conditions with that? Right, so the certificate that was issued some time back was issued on the basis of plans that didn't correctly illustrate the topography of the site. That was the first issue, as it happens the certificate ought not to have been made lawful anyway because the development extends forward as a principal elevation. But having issued a certificate under section 192 then you make that development conclusively presumed to be lawful unless there is a subsequent change in the material circumstances. Like I say, because of the initial issue that it wasn't drawn correctly it couldn't be relied upon anyway because it was impossible to realise the development that had been portrayed. So the certificate is essentially of no value, so then it becomes an issue of you can't make it lawful retrospectively. So again, that avenue of a full opposition is of no value, but then it becomes a question of whether or not it is acceptable in policy terms, which is the decision that was made pursuant to the retention applications and, like I outlined originally, they were all refused and all of the refusals have been upheld on appeal thus far. It's also required of the local authority, and they're at risk if they don't do it, to determine applications in accordance with not just the development plan but also taking into account previous appeal decisions in particular. The application recognises the amendments that are proposed but, like in our lines, it's not considered that they go far enough to address the issues that have been previously applied to the refusal, so hence we're not really in a position to recommend it for approval. Was there anything else in particular that you wanted to add? I'm sorry, you've finished with yours, thank you very much. This is my life we're talking about. Yes, you have finished your presentation, you've answered questions, thank you very much. You've had your time. I've forgotten what I was going to ask you now. You should come back to me, Councillor Carrick. Thank you. Part of this application is the extensions, the rear and side extensions, which appear to be put in to sort of indicate the garage or part of the garage. Can we separate them from the garage, so look at the extensions separately from the garage? I think so, this is one application, so even if there's one part we don't agree with, we're dealing with this application as a whole, we can't on this occasion agree part of it and not part of it. I think you can, if the committee was of the opinion that the extensions to the house were okay but the outbuilding wasn't, the application still needs to be refused but the terms of the refusal would need to be amended. So you can sort of have that, that's part of the motion, if you like, and then we rephrase the refusal reasons, and that would be agreed with the chair afterwards before the decision that is issued. Just the other thing is, I understand that the garage, as far as the planning department is concerned, doesn't comply even with the amendment to the slope. Is there any other alternative to the structure that the applicant could work with the council to amend the structure that would comply? Well, I don't think that's a question I can really answer here, or that would necessarily be appropriate to this particular discussion, but that's certainly a discussion that would need to be had with the enforcement officers, because they're the ones that will choose whether or not otherwise to ultimately prosecute the notice. But it's not a question for me to answer here now, but for them to discuss down the line. The first speaker, I can't remember your name, sorry, mentioned about in regards to the postcode indicating which side, can you just explain the officer's opinion on that? Yes, so for the purposes of planning, usually that would be the case, so in the technical guidance note for permitted development rights for householders, in the preface to that, it talks about definitions for the principal elevation, and it concedes that in the main, that would usually be the case. But where there's corner locations, then you have to take a view on a case-by-case basis. I mean, it specifically mentions, for example, porches forming part of the principal elevation, like that would be the elevation that would currently be understood, so it's not necessarily the case that a definition used in one part of the law is the same when it's applied to a different part of the law. If this house was in a different place, how much of this planning would it be able to receive on permitted development? So, if the principal elevation was the other flank of the house, then the footprint of the building, as built, may have been lawful, but not the height because of the topography, so not the entire building envelope. Thank you. Just two more points. On officers' understanding, the height is how much over? Possibly, well, so, it's not too far off the amended eave's height at the rear. I mean, that much is probably correct, because, confusingly, the relevant point for the height in this site, because of the way the levels of the land were, the bottom of where you would measure up from is within the garden of the host property, but the top point you'd be measuring to would be the equivalent height of the rear site. So, it's not like you just pick a bit and you measure that bit. You have to measure the relative height relative to a different point on the ground. So, it's not entirely straightforward, but not much different from that which is being proposed as the amendment. Thank you. Just a general point. Having been on site, I can't really say the reason why the size, height is disproportionate or the building is obtrusive, and a lot of what I've read in the report and some questions now seem quite technical and I don't understand, but being on site, it looked, it fitted in perfectly, and therefore, I will be voting against the recommendation. Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Roberts? Yes, you said that the certificates were issued in error. So, if we were to prove that, we're asking for it to go to appeal straight away in that case? No, I mean the issue of the certificate is irrelevant, effectively. The certificate was issued in error, but it couldn't have been realised anyway, and you can't make it lawful retrospectively, so it doesn't make any difference to the outcome. I mean, that question's been asked also in the pursuit of the previous appeals and dismissed by the Inspector. Right, any further comments or questions? Sorry, Councillor, do you have another question? Yes, I do. Thank you. Okay, so for the purpose of the record, when I say the certificate was issued in error, I mean that error was the error of the Local Planning Authority, but in any event, the plans depict something that could not be realised. But when I say an error in issuing it, it was our error in issuing it, because as was subsequently established at appeal, the outbuilding extends beyond the principal elevation, and so it can't be lawful by virtue of the restrictions within the Order itself. Sorry, just one question, please. No, I'm sorry, you've had your time. You've had plenty of time yourselves. Yes, we can have whatever time we want. I'm contesting the evidence that is being given here. The outbuilding elevation was actually established on the original drawings. The Council knew that that was the drawings that was there, that I said in my comment. Thank you, we heard your comment, thank you. If there's no more questions, we'll go to the vote. Now it seems to be quite complicated and to some extent there are two parts to this. This is one application. So, the application is as it stands for the extensions to the house and for the outbuilding. The officers are recommending refusal. All those in favour of refusal? Three, all those against refusal? One, one not voting. So that application is refused. Thank you very much. And we move on to the next item on the agenda, which is Fenton House in Hadley Green. Waste of time, waste of time. Bloody point of turning up or you're going to refuse it anyway. Thank you for really considering it. The last panel just really wouldn't even listen and I do appreciate you asking questions and considering it. Thank you. So this application relates to Fenton House and it basically involves the alterations and reconstruction of the main roof to basically include previous applications that have been approved. This is a two-storey single family dwelling house, which you can see in the bottom kind of centre image and also at the top here. So it was constructed in the 1980s in the mock Neo Georgian style and it's located within the Monk and Hadley conservation area. So you can see basically its location here along Hadley Green West and this is kind of a wider conservation area. So we have to the right here, we have Pimlico House, which is a grade two statutory listed property. It lies directly adjacent to the host site and so the property benefits from kind of large amenity space to the rear and also off street parking within the front forecourt. And it has been developed by virtue of a two-storey detached annex building and also outdoor pool and kind of pool house, which is extended along this northern boundary. And kind of when we look at the context of the surrounding area, properties tend to retain their original finish and this is kind of referenced in the character appraisal as well. So basically you have obviously the cream rendered listed property here, properties up here are kind of part rendered, but generally the kind of original finish with traditional features is maintained. So you can see the site photo here, so kind of as mentioned, it's constructed in a mock Neo Georgian style. It's of a red brick finish with traditional architectural detailing, such as brick coining, window detailing and surrounds. And the property is shown as being a positive building on the townscape appraisal map and this is such by virtue of its designation. It's recognised as making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Monk and Hadley conservation area. And the planning inspector as well has also upheld this view in recent appeal decisions to kind of determine that the existing unvented property is a positive contributor to the conservation area. And kind of within the Monk and Hadley conservation area character appraisal, when it kind of references these properties of Fenton House and kind of one surrounded and listed property, it talks about how they vary in style and quality of design, but they're attractive and remain largely altered and contribute positively to the conservation area. So you can see the existing plans here, so it kind of shows the property in its red brick finish. And then the proposed plans here, which incorporate the approved works and also it's worth noting there is a separate application pending consideration, kind of in relation to the combination of the approved works and with the addition of the white render façade, as you can see. So in terms of the key kind of issues for this case, it's worth noting that we have a C4 number of objectives. That's including from the Monk and Hadley Conservation Area Advisory Committee and the objective comments are kind of saying that the white render would kind of increase the prominence of visibility of the property. It's kind of out of character and would appear more obtrusive from front and back elevations. And heritage officers have also been consulted on the proposal and they have objected to any form of render at the site. So they're kind of against render in any form and consider it to have a harmful impact upon the character of the conservation area. So you can see here that any proposed rendering is considered to be unacceptable at the site. It's considered that the proposed white rendered façade would obscure the existing red brick finish and the architectural detailing, which are key characteristic features of a property and they contribute to its kind of positive building setting and also how it enhances the conservation area. So I think, yeah, the loss of these architectural features would have a harmful impact on the character of a wider conservation area. And it's also concerned that whilst it is set back from the front kind of street scene, it would conflict with and kind of compete with the appearance of a neighbouring listed property. So it's kind of at the moment, it's kind of set back and whilst the approved works have kind of increased the kind of bulk and mass of the property, given that it retains the existing red brick finish, it doesn't kind of appear prominent. Whereas it's considered that the white rendered façade would kind of increase the contemporary nature, the traditional kind of more setback nature of property would be eroded and it's considered that that would harm the conservation area. And also the inspector frequently upholds that even if a property isn't visible from the front in a conservation area, it can still kind of cause significant harm. Any kind of change to design can still have an impact on the character of the conservation area, whether they are kind of visible or not from the public realm. So yeah, kind of lead none from that. I mean, there hasn't been, little justification has kind of been provided as to why the rendering should be acceptable. There has been reference to improving the energy efficiency of the building, but Historic England have produced recent guidance on energy efficiency. And they have stated that where primary permission is required, the same approach should be taken to unlisted buildings and conservation areas as listed buildings. And that they wouldn't support external wall insulation, unlisted buildings or kind of within conservation areas. And also there's concern that by kind of a previous application, it would set a precedent for future development. So the potential future rendering of properties within conservation areas, not just limited to Monk and Hadley, but also other kind of conservation areas in the borough. And that that would kind of have a harmful detrimental impact upon kind of the conservation areas in this kind of surrounding area. So yeah, they're kind of a key points from this. Thank you. We don't have any speakers on this except for the agent, Scott Sampson. Mr Sampson here. Thank you. If you could introduce yourself and. Thank you. OK, when you're ready. Thank you very much. Good evening, chair members. My name is Andrew Scott and acting agent in connection with this application. I'm a childhood architect practicing for 47 years. I've also been a resident of Hadley Green for some 43 years. I remember Fenton House being constructed in the early 1980s. Fenton House is constructed of soft red facing bricks, incorporating a parapet on all elevations with brick coins built in a mock Neo Georgian style. There is a single objection to this application before you, which relates solely to the proposed render finish. Members will have now received the photos of the existing building, which I've handed out. These show existing brick detailing and illustrate some poor qualities. Different bricks have been used for the plinths, for the plinth base and the main facades. Sand cement fillets have been applied to the exposed brick coins to form a weathering detail to the porous bricks. The built quality is not so high standard. And materials have deteriorated over the 40 years since its construction. The proposed render will be a simple smooth finish with a single mid-level band, similar to other Georgian properties in the area. The officers' reports state that the render will result in the building becoming obtrusive, inharmonious and unsympathetic. Approximately half the buildings located in Hadley Green are rendered. Fenton House is probably the most inconspicuous building in the area, as it is sited some 50 metres back from the access drive and behind a green screen of trees and shrubs. You have one minute remaining. Thank you. As an example, adjoining is Pimlico House, a detached render dwelling that is only three metres back from the shared access drive and without any screening. The applicant feels that the officer's statement is unjustified and made without supporting evidence. This is not a heritage asset, it is not statutory or locally listed. It is considered that the proposal will provide a quality building in an unpretentious style which will integrate well with its surroundings. The applicants respectfully ask the committee to provide a favourable recommendation with a condition for the selected render colour to be agreed with the officers. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions? Yes, it's Catherine Roberts. I just want to establish your last point that you made. The applicant is prepared to consider the possible change in render colour. Yes, it was never asked of us to submit a colour and I think that is significant and I think if members are minded to allow this to go through this evening, we'd be happy to accept a condition that the colour is selected with the agreement of the officers. Okay, thank you. Yes, that's going to be my point as well. Any further questions? No, thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, so to the officers, all legal, it seems to be more about the colour of the render rather than anything else. So what are we able to say about that? That there should be a two agreement or can it be conditioned or if we were inclined to agree it with a change of colour, how would we address that? I think kind of the main issue of this application is that it's a consideration from heritage officers that actually external wall installation or kind of any render of any form would not be suitable at the site. So that's kind of what they're resisting. It's not specifically just the colour, obviously the white render is kind of contrary to the neighbouring listed property. However, it is just the addition of render in general, but it's going to kind of obscure them existing architectural details and actually it kind of takes away the kind of, although it's not a designated heritage asset, it is a positive building and that has been recognised through the LPA townscape appraisal. So although it's not a designated heritage asset, it is kind of recognised as a positive building. And that's kind of recognising the character appraisal in the kind of LPA townscape map and also recent kind of appeal decisions as well. The planning inspector has kind of upheld this. So it is recognised as making a positive contribution to the conservation area in its current form. And it's considered that any kind of form of render would change this kind of detriment, kind of contrary to polypsy, DMA6. Just to clarify one thing that is true, the building itself is not locally listed or statutory listed. But because it's a technical clarification, the conservation area within which it sits, that is a designated heritage asset. And so all development has to either preserve or enhance the character and appearance. And in the opinion of the heritage officer, the addition of render cumulatively to the other amendments does not do that. And that's why it's recommended for refusal. So it's not necessarily just about the building itself, whether or not it is intrinsic or otherwise. Thank you. So if we go to the vote on this, the officers are recommending refusal. All those in favour of refusal? Two. Those against refusal? Two. One not voting? So it's the chair's decision. And as chair, I support the officer's recommendation to refuse. So this application is refused and we move on to the next one. Now, I think. Are you going to present the next two together? They're sort of linked, so we can present the two together and then we'll vote on them separately. Good evening, committee and members of the public. This is the application at 79 Oakley Park North and Fairfield Oakley Park North. The two applications for the removal of three trees. The reason the applications before the committee tonight is there's a financial implication in the decision. Sorry, I think people in the public gallery are indicating that I can't hear you. Do you mind moving your... Is that better? Yeah. So there's a financial implication in the decision for the removal of the trees. There's a risk of compensation as a result of refusal and nine objections have been received in relation to the application. So the application is for the removal of one oak tree and one false acacia tree standing in the gardens of Fairfield and one false acacia tree located in the front garden of 79 Oakley Park North. This is the site location plan and you can see this is the location of the oak tree and these are the locations of the two TPO false acacia trees, one in the garden of 79 and one in the garden of Fairfield. This is the aerial image. This is the oak tree here and the two false acacia trees are here. This is the view from Oakley Park North and you can see this is the false acacia tree standing within Fairfield and subject to this application TPP 072023. This is trees in a poor quality. I think at some point in the past the crown failed and it's starting to regrow with new branches here and it's completely covered in ivy so it's quite difficult to determine its true condition but its contribution is fairly minimal. This is the second application TPP 072123 which is the tree located in the front garden of 79 Oakley Park North and the tree has been managed and maintained and has some contribution but not exceptional. And the oak tree has stood behind Fairfield here and that's subject to the application TPP 702023. This is a site photograph, a slightly different view but it shows the contribution of the oak tree to the street scene of Oakley Park North and you can see the tree which is growing in the front garden of 79. This is the view from behind Fairfield and this is the oak tree in its entirety. It's a very large mature oak tree. The oak is implicated in causing damage to the rear part of the block of flats and you can see the typical cracking of the brickwork going diagonally down through the building and it's repeated on the rear side flank as well so there's a sort of diagonal going down that way too. These are internal images of the damage provided by the applicant. There's damage around the windows, around the doorways and up into the ceilings. And there's also damage reported on the balcony on the first floor. This is the internal damage reported at the front of the building where the false acacia trees are alleged to have been causing movement and there's crack damage typical around the windows here and here and on external brickwork there's typical diagonal cracking. The applicants in recent months submitted an application for installation of a root barrier and the root barrier is located here shown by the white line. It's quite an extensive 50 metres of root barrier which would exclude tree roots growing towards the affected parts of the property at the front and rear. So that has been approved and the cost of that is estimated at around £91,000. Engineers have reviewed the technical data provided by the applicants and have found that the tree roots have caused some desiccation. The oak tree roots at the rear of the property are implicated in causing damage. Fairfield was built in 1972 before the guidelines for foundations and subsidence were issued so they were built probably to standard at the time. The damage there in the rear is recorded at level 3, category 3 which is fairly large cracks and probably at the front is category 2. The applicant has assessed for heave and found that the risk of heave is acceptable. So on balance the oak tree is implicated in causing subsidence to the rear and the acacia trees are implicated in causing damage to the front and that's both trees, one in Fairfield and one in the front garden of 79. The key considerations are for this is the oak tree is a very large high amenity tree. It's a very old tree, it's a large substantial size. The false acacia tree growing within Fairfield is in poor condition and will provide little long term visceral amenity. The false acacia tree growing within 79 has moderate value and provides some amenity to the street. All three trees are implicated in causing damage to Fairfield both at the front and rear. The agents have submitted an application for a root barrier and that was approved. The cost of that root barrier is quoted at 91,000. However, the solicitors for the applicants submitted a claim for damages on the 18th of October. And the outstanding claim for damages is for £80,000 should the application be refused, they would seek compensation to that level. So the recommendation, as usual, we haven't provided a direct recommendation for the trees. It's for the members to determine whether the risk of loss and loss of amenity against the information provided is acceptable. But there are two decisions to make. One for the trees growing in Fairfield, which is TPP072023 for the removal of the oak tree and false acacia tree. The decision could be split between the oak and the false acacia tree if the members were minded to do so. And then the recommendation for the false acacia tree growing at 79 Oakley Park North can be determined as normal. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We have Councillor Schneiderman down as a speaker, but I don't see him here so I don't think he's going to speak. So we have the agent Jackie Gumsley. No, there are no speakers on this. Can we just have some discussion or confirmation about this claim for £80,000 for compensation. I'm not aware in similar situations where we we've refused consent for trees that such claims have been put in so could we have some information about what this is, why it is and how likely it is. Because there's been some delay in determining the application. The solicitors saw that because the application hadn't been decided within the eight week period, it was deemed refusal. And on that basis they've submitted a claim that the council's, that the application is deemed a refusal. Do you think we could have some legal advice on the likelihood of this on the implications for the council? So? Do you think we could have some legal advice on the implications for the council of this? The compensation if we're likely to pay, if the council is likely to be liable for £80,000 if we refuse this. So the question is what the implications are if a claim such as this was to be successful. And obviously that would depend on the merits of the case. And if it was a successful claim, obviously the council would have to pay compensation. Thank you. If we were to split the oak tree and the false acacia at the one location and decided to grant the removal of those trees, would that substantially reduce the amount of root barrier required and therefore substantially reduce the amount of liability required. Or the amount of liability we may possibly have. That would be a fair assumption, I'll go back up to the plan. So there's the location of the root barrier. The acacia trees are here, so they may be able to foreshorten the root barrier, just to sort of to isolate the house and the tree together. So it will be significantly smaller amount of works, what that value is I couldn't say, but it will be less. Any comments or questions? Yes, Councillor Carrick. I propose that we do split the oak tree and the false acacia. How do we, how do we propose to vote on this? Do we have to propose a different thing without just approving? Okay, Councillor Carrick, would you like to propose a motion that we refuse permission for the oak tree but agree for the false acacia in the first? If you, so Councillor Carrick is proposing a motion to split the decision. So if somebody seconds that. I will second it. And then if you vote on that, if you vote against that recommendation, then it would default back to the original recommendation, which you can also vote either in favour of or against. Yeah, we need, we need to just check legally what we're doing here so we can take five minutes or so to get confirmation of the legality of this. We're in the meeting now. I think we have clarification on the procedure for this. Councillor Carrick has proposed that we split the decision on item 11 TPP0721-23. Sorry, it's TPP0720-23. Oh, sorry. Yeah. TPP0720-23. We split the decision. That's the one that concerns two trees, the oak tree and the false acacia. So you're proposing that you refuse permission for removal of the false acacia, but refuse permission for removal of the oak tree. Is that correct? That's correct. And I second that proposal. All those in favour of that proposal? That's all. So we now need to vote on the other application 0721, which is for the one false acacia in the garden of 79. So there's no recommendation for this. So we're voting either for removal of the tree or for retaining the tree. So those in favour of removal of the tree? For those in favour of retaining a tree? One. So we have voted to remove that tree or to allow that tree to be removed. So I think that's everything on tonight's agenda.

Transcript

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. It's past 7 o'clock so we're going to start the meeting now. Could we have some quiet in the public gallery please and start the meeting. My name is Claire Farrier, I'm chair of this planning committee. Just make sure I switched on. Can you hear now? Is that better? OK, yeah, I think we've turned the speakers on better. Yeah, I think the speakers at the back have been turned on. I say thank you very much for attending this evening. I will ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves and then the planning officers and the legal officer and governance officer. So my name is Claire Farrier, chairing this committee, I'm a councillor for East Binchley. Councillor Roberts? Councillor Arjun Mitra, member for East Binchley Ward. Councillor Neill, member for Collinale South Ward. Councillor Joshua Conway, Henven Ward. Johnathan Mills, planning manager, Terese. Kate Foster, planning officer. Edith Lones, senior planner. Johnathan Mills, planning manager. We'll try and speak closely into the microphones and we're trying to get the speakers seen to at the back. So if we can carry on. Mark Spinkthorpe, planning manager. Good evening, Heidi Erskoe, planning manager. Tina Frowagy, legal advisor. Good evening, Farah Hossain, governance officer and clerk to the committee. Thank you. Now, we ask that you remain seated during the meeting unless you're called to the table to address the committee. And please note that the meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in-law and by the council. By attending, either in person or online, you may be picked up on recordings. And the council recordings are covered by our privacy notice, which can be found on our website. Now, for each application, the planning officer will present the application. The speakers will then have three minutes each to address the committee. And you'll be told when you have a minute left. Then there's the opportunity for members of the committee to ask you questions. And following that, the committee will discuss and determine the application and we will announce the decision. So if we move on to the agenda, I've got the minutes of the last meeting, which was on the supplementary agenda, is everything that? I'm pretty happy with the minutes of the last meeting. Thank you. Absence of members. Councillor, do you want to speak? Councillor Greenspan has been taken to hospital this evening. Councillor Simberg may be on his way. OK, thank you. All the other members of the committee are here. Any declaration of interests? No, and there's no dispensations granted. Everybody has seen the addendum that was sent out and published this afternoon. So moving on to the first application on the agenda, which is the Church Hall of St Mary the Virgin in Barnet. Thank you, Chair. So the item is involving Church Hall at St Mary the Virgin Church of England in Camden Way. The proposal involves demolition and rebuild of the existing two-storey Church Hall. Members would recall this application was heard at 9th of October committee meeting. It was called in by Councillor Weisel on Heritage grounds. After discussions, a motion was moved that the application be minded to approve. And the application was deferred to next meeting for determination on the grounds that the benefits of a new Church Hall to the local community outweighed the harm listed in the officer's report. And that the redevelopment would fit the character of the local area. So for clarity, where an application is recommended for refusal and the committee is minded to approve the application, the item is deferred to the next meeting to enable re-notification to take place and to give an opportunity for objectors to the application and the applicant to attend the subsequent meeting and make representations and for a re-hearing of the application to take place. So this is in accordance with the council's constitution. So the application has been brought back to this committee with suggested conditions in the event the committee overturned the officer's recommendation. The applicant's agent has had cite and agreed to suggested conditions which are attached as an appendix to the report. So the Church Hall is outlined in red and is set within the grounds of the grey two star listed parish church. Therefore forms part of the church curtilage. There is no boundary between the actual Church Hall and the church itself. The site is within the green belt and Monckenhati Conservation Area. It is within an area of archaeological significance and is covered by an article four direction. The common opposite is this location here and it's a site of importance for nature conservation. Church Hall is locally listed and previous extensions have been granted. However the applicant states that the foundations are not sound enough to restore the original building. This is the proposed site plan. The redevelopment of the Church Hall would be approximately one metre deeper and one metre wider. And it is also one metre set in from this boundary or its original position. The extensions would be a single storey to the south side and two storey to the north and would be a two storey building. These are the site photographs. Again more site photographs. This is a view from the common and this is the rear elevation of the hall facing the grey two star church building. Again more site photos. These are the existing plans and sections and these are the existing elevations. Proposed elevations and section. You will note on the existing elevation there's a limited number of windows. On the proposed there are five windows at ground level and six windows at first floor level facing the church graveyard. These are the proposed elevations. As you will see two storey to the north side and a single storey to the south. The fact that the property falls within the green belt it has to comply with the volume calculations. So the volume proposed on this proposal would be approximately 26.6 cubic metres. Which is over the allowance stated within the residential design guidance. So this is a proposed CGI of what the building would look like. And these are the proposed plans. Again this is a proposed plan. It's a comparison. It's an overlay of the proposed over the existing footprint. As you can see the red line is what's existing there at the minute and the proposal is the black lines. So one metre further forward and one metre deeper on the sides. OK. Existing and proposed site plan. These are just volume calculations. Heritage officers have objected on the grounds that there would be substantial harm to non-designated heritage assets through the demolition and significant harm to Grade 2 star listed church building and harm the conservation area. Heritage officers also comment that church house makes a good contribution to the setting of the curtilage of the listed church building and the proposal adds significant number of windows to the west elevation. So the proposal would result in an unbalanced design that would increase the number of window openings allowing direct views into the church yard. As noted in the planning history of the site extensions has previously been approved. However as mentioned earlier on the applicants have not provided sufficient justification to say why the extension cannot be restored as it stands. And why a demolition is required. I have nothing further to add to the report. We did have a speaker this evening, Councillor Farrier, but I believe he's unable to attend. We've got representations to read out. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. We had an objector who didn't speak last time, Guy Braithwaite, another AP sent. Something you're going to read out. This is a statement from Guy Braithwaite. I have been invited to speak at the planning committee about the proposal to demolish Moncken Hadley Church Hall and replace it with a new hall on the same site. I'm sorry to say I am unable to come this evening owing to illness. I support the ultimate objective of Moncken Hadley Church and the restoration committee to provide a hall and facilities fit for the community's needs. However, it is my view that, and that of the planning officer, that the case is not made that the present building could not be stabilised and repaired, thereby enabling it to be extended and refitted for modern use. In the absence of an options appraisal assessing the feasibility and cost of remedial work, as opposed to rebuild, the case for demolition is not made. Since the last meeting, the applicant has invited me and colleagues from the Barnet Society to a meeting on site to discuss the proposals. It's a shame that this has not been possible for that to happen before tonight's meeting, but I do look forward to any possibility of finding a better outcome than the demolition of a locally listed building. The officer's report recommending refusal hasn't changed since the last meeting, nor has any new evidence been put forward. Agreeing it now would set a bad precedent for locally listed buildings and conservation areas. We need to ensure that demolitions of heritage assets are not agreed without a sound case being made. That's essential for protecting Barnet's heritage as well as its environment. Thank you, Mr Braithwaite. Mr Braithwaite isn't here, we're not able to ask him any questions on his statement. We have Councillor Weiser, do you wish to speak again? Either speak again or just answer any further questions. Thank you, Chair. I wasn't planning to speak again unless the committee had any further questions from last time. I'm aware, I think, that Councillor Mitchell wasn't here last time, if he had any questions. Councillor Carrick. Thank you. My question is to reinforce the officer's question about proving the viability of restoring the original building. They feel that they have not had sufficient evidence to prove that it's not viable. Is there anything you can add to that? I know that this was obviously answered by the agent at the last meeting. And I know from conversations that I've had with the Churchill Committee and information that's been provided to me in the past, that the cost of rebuilding what is already there would be twice what is, roughly twice what is currently estimated for demolishing and building anew. And obviously building anew would allow them to slightly move it off the waterway that is running underneath part of the building and making the foundations unstable, which would help secure the building for the future. That is my understanding. Obviously, much more technical detail was covered by the agent at the last meeting. The questions? No, thank you very much. We have the agent, Alan Cox. Mr Cox here. No, I think the agent is not speaking again, if we can remember, but he did speak last time and addressed those issues of viability of the building. So we come back to the officers now. Any comments or questions, further questions to the officers? Have you had any further dialogue concerning the viability of retaining the existing hall? No, no further dialogue has been taken place. Mr Roberts. I just wanted to check, do you accept that the building in its current condition is not fit for purpose? Well, we haven't actually said that. The applicant has said that in its current situation, it's not sound enough for extensions to be implemented to the existing building because the foundations are not safe enough. So hence the reason why it would be more viable for the existing church building to be demolished and rebuilt. And if I can just confirm, because we indicated that we may like to approve this application, the last one, you've come back with conditions. Did you say that these have been seen and OKed by the other? I know they don't need to. We can put conditions on as we want, but the applicant is OK with the conditions. So the conditions are attached as an appendix to the report and which should be within the agenda items. So there's a number of pre-commencement conditions that needs to be agreed with the applicant and that's been agreed. So we have emailed the suggested conditions to the agent and he has confirmed that he's in agreement. Thank you. Has anybody got any questions about the conditions or comments about the conditions that may be put on this? No. So if we go to a vote on this, the officers are recommending refusal. All those in favour of the officers recommendation to refuse? One. And those against the officers recommendation to refuse? So if somebody would like to propose approval with the reasons for approval? And a seconder? Councillor Callick. The reasons last time that the community benefit. Yes, sorry. The community benefit. So all those in favour of approving with those terms and with the conditions that are in the report? Four against. One. Thank you very much. That application is approved with the conditions that were added. And we move on to the next item, which is 7 Northfield Road. Hi, good evening councillors and members of public. I'm here to present an application for a change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a Class C2 children's home for the care up to three children at 7 Northfield Road. So the application site is a two-storey semi-detached house on the northwestern side of Northfield Road. The area is predominantly residential in character. So it's situated on a corner plot and has previously been extended. So these are the area photos. Site photos showing that they have got a rear gardens of about 130 square metres and to the front there is on-site parking for two car parks. There's no external alterations, but mainly regarding to internal changes, ground floor will be converted to reception and play area. And for the first floor plan, there will be three children's homes sized 10.8 square metres to about 14 square metres, which is considered quite spacious and there will be two staff working areas. So the key arguments of this application is whether the use of a children's care home would materially impact the character of the area by virtue of the number of comings and goings and any associated impacts in terms of noise and safety. So the applicant has submitted additional information regarding staff arrangement. There will be likely comings and goings happened at 7am and latest at 10.30. So the proposal is unlikely to result in an intensification of the use beyond that expected of a single household. So again, this is a similar approach to the recently granted permission at 49 St James and Asian House. Just a key note that the area itself is quite poorly accessible as it has a PTA of 1B. However, the needs have been substantially justified. Say the house is about 15 to 18 minutes walk from Cox Foster and New Barnet underground. And also in terms of safety, map police were consulted and there are some numbers of risk management strategy has been further submitted in order to provide mitigation measures to safeguard the children and also lower the impact to the disturbance to the neighbour. So therefore, on balance, the needs has been justified and also the harm to the character and neighbouring amenities are unbalanced acceptable. Therefore, officers is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Thank you. Thank you. We have the one objector, Jay Welland, Mr Welland, if you'd like to come forward. Let's take a seat and turn the microphone on. There's a button with a face on it. And then if you can introduce yourself and you have three minutes to speak, you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. My name is John Welland. I just must explain to you I have been diagnosed with vote cancer in the last month, so I hope that you'll give me some leeway. As you can see, I have a slight problem with my speech. Just a second. Can we start the clock when he starts rather than include the preamble? Okay, I'm ready. First of all, with regard to this, I'd like to talk about money, finance. This is a for profit, not Dr Bernardo's, a for profit care home with three children. The income of which could be in excess of a million pounds. With regard to finance for the residents, it could mean a reduction in their property value of anywhere between 10% to 20%. When you're selling a property, you must declare any adverse events or project that can be against someone wishing to buy a property. Our most important worry is antisocial behaviour. The possibility of antisocial behaviour is best described in the application by Sunray Sanctuary. We're talking about security. They say that security is a protection against external threats such as relative income. Also gang members identified as a possibility that can become a problem with the care home. I cannot believe that the Planning Committee and Barnet Council will allow this to be dumped in the middle of a peaceful family area. Not to mention a brand new nursery of 100 places within 150 yards of the property. I'd also like to state now we should have had two speakers. One of you could have spoken about problems with the property. No other speakers came forward. We could have another speaker if one had come forward, but I don't think anyone came forward. So if you can just briefly summarise now. You've come to the end of your three minutes. To summarise on behalf of the residents, this will not be the end of our objections. And to be perfectly fair to the project, I think you will be seeing legal action either by a group or by individuals. Unfortunately my medical condition doesn't allow me to enlarge any further, as does my three minutes. You can just wait a minute and see if there's any questions. Anybody have any questions? No? Thank you very much. You can return to your seat if you prefer to what you had said. No questions answered. What I would say is that some of the concerns you raised, I think the applicant and/or the agent are going to speak. We will ask the applicant to confirm some of the things that you said. So next we have the applicant, Mrs Henry, or the agent. So you're the applicant, you're going to be running the home so you can answer some of the questions. Yes, sure. Can you hear me? Okay, thank you. If you can introduce yourself and you'll have three minutes to speak and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Yes. Hi, can you hear me properly? Hi, my name is Hagor Henry. I have been an officer-register Tri-Mander for the past seven years, and for several years it has been my aspiration to establish a children care home. Over the last two years I have actively pursued this dream, working diligently to bring it to fruition. We can accommodate up to a maximum of three young people. The same children will use the positive provided. We can accommodate three cars in our private driveway. The visits to the care home are not very frequent and can easily be managed by scheduling the visits. We aim to create a safe and nurturing environment, enabling children to recover from past trauma and grow to achieve their full potential. We work with therapeutic parenting approach, which is key in caring for those who have experienced neglect, abuse, significant development trauma in the lower years. We were chosen this property because local risk assessment is positive, the size and layout of the property, surrounding of the property, house features, five double bedrooms and a study, a spacious living room, three bathrooms with shower toilet and sink, a large kitchen with dining room, a garden, a private driveway at the front of the house that can accommodate three cars. Three children will have their own double size bedroom with plenty of space for bed, wardrobe, desk in a family style arrangement. This five bedroom property has home-like atmosphere compared to a larger home. It is a smaller setting and it will accommodate only three young people, which can be beneficial for them as well as for the workers. Some reinstructive beliefs in promoting equality, valuing diversity and working inclusively. The management strategies for ensuring the safety of the children and the wider community at 7 Northfield Road includes comprehensive staff training, robust policies and procedures, and a secure environment and a child-centric approach. This children care home will be fully secured and comply with health and safety regulations. If you are in care, your local authorities or corporate parents, this means they should act like loving parents would and provide with the best possible support. UK Parliament statement by Richard Maclean, The planning system should not be a barrier to providing homes for most vulnerable children, also stated, To support effective delivery, unitary authorities should work with commissioners to access local need and to closely engage the support application. We believe this property is situated in a lovely, quiet, residential area. It could be the perfect, stable, loving home for three children who need it at the most, where the individual needs can be met. This is the right home in the right place. This is a unique opportunity where we can provide a stable, safe and loving home for three young people. This is your opportunity to closely engage to support this application. Last time, thank you. Right, thank you. You heard Mr Welland and his concerns about the children who may be in this home and the anti-social behaviour that may result, so I wonder if you can mention how that would be managed? I saw your staffing regulation, it's going to be one-to-one staffing, so I assume it would be suitable supervision at all times, but I wonder if you could comment on how you manage any possible anti-social behaviour? Yes, the care home will have strict protocols in place. We will comply with all relevant legal requirements. As I mentioned, the management strategies for ensuring safety of the children. We will have comprehensive staff training, robust policies and procedures to follow, a secure environment and a child safety approach. We have a lot of policies, including safeguarding policy, behaviour management policy. At Sunway Sanctuary, we follow therapeutic parenting, informed approach to working with children. We promote an emotional connection between the child and the adult, increase the child's sense of security and trust. We will have basically a lot of policies to follow. Presumably you will be registered and regulated by Ofsted? Staff training will include protection, safeguarding policy first, emergency response. The staff will give therapeutic parenting training as well. So we are promoting the children positive behaviour and teach them how to be positive. The gang members, it's only saying if somebody turns up and frets the children, then the staff will be trained how to react, but it's not necessarily going to happen. Usually there are no issues because we are only accommodating a maximum of three children with staff member ratio one to one, never forward behind, or even more staff member for one child. So obviously we supervise correctly, which is not going to allow the children to do any bad behaving. And that's how therapeutic parenting to teach them how to be positive, reaction to other people and for the community. So it's all kind of making sure it's the safety of the community. Yes, thank you. Mr. Welland spoke here, but we saw from the objections that came in that other people have similar concerns. So are you going to be able to make a contact number available to local people in case they have any concerns when there's an operation they can raise with you? I mean, it's not strictly a planning matter, that I must say, but it's just from the point of view of the neighbours that are they going to be able to contact you if they have any concerns? Sorry, do I need to answer any more question? As I say, that's not strictly a planning matter, but from the point of view of the concerns that have been raised. OK. It's how you would respond to those. Are you going to be able to provide a contact number for people if they raise concerns when the home is in operation? We're hardly here because it's the... Sorry, yes. Yes, sure. I would like to add that we understand the concern, but it will be only for the children. It's like a small family. It's not going to be here to make any nuisance or any disturbance. We aim to make sure it's not a disturbance whatsoever to the neighbourhood. Councillor Canwick. Thank you. The report notes that the Met Police have reviewed your documents, which I assume is your policies as well. So I don't have any concerns about that, but what I would like to know is what experience you've had in managing a children's home. We will have management. That's not a planning matter. OK. That's up to Ofsted when they register and regulate the service to deal with that. I hope this is a relevant question. How long do your carers normally resident for? How many years? Are they there for an extended period of time? OK. We have a very high expectation for the staff. They have to be the right experience, skills and experience. So all the qualifications have to be... We have to go through Ofsted registration and we have to comply all the legal requirements. And one of the legal requirements, they have to have relevant qualifications, otherwise we can't open in the first place. If they meet those qualifications on average, I appreciate it's not an absolute figure, but how long would they stay in place? Well, we try to aim for a small minimum of turnover and make sure the staff and children, everybody happy and not making any disturbance to the neighbourhood. Sorry, you're asking about the children who are going to be living there, how long they'll be there? No, I'm talking years. It depends, but we make sure they are happy so they stay as long as possible because the less turnover is the better for the children. Is that the question? Because we haven't got the staff yet, we have to go through Ofsted registration first. I'm wondering, on average, how long do the carers stay in place? If they are happy, four years. Okay, fine, that's the answer I was after. Thank you. Any more questions, Councillor Conway? There's a clear demand in Barnet for family housing. What demand or what data do you have to show there's a need for this within this area? Sorry, can you repeat the question? There's a clear demand in Barnet for family houses. This would take away a family house. What demand is there, what data do you have to show that there's a demand for this sort of home within Barnet? Okay, the demand is high, the waiting time at least six months, and they're placing children frequently miles away, really miles away or more from their environment, which, as Rachel McLean stated, it's good for the children to be staying with family and friends in the same environment. So it's a very high demand, I would say. Any more questions? No, thank you very much. Any questions for the officers or comments? I would like to comment that we do know as Councillors that there is a big shortage of children's homes and a need for children's homes, and children's services are themselves trying to create a number of these. Those of us who are on the corporate parenting committee know that there's a particular demand for homes for children with emotional needs who are very often placed far away from the borough and far away from their family's any contact. So I'm not saying that this home would be used, it depends how it's assessed by the council when it's open, whether we would place children there, but there is a big need for this type of home. So if there's no further comments, we'll go to the vote. The officer's recommendation is to approve. All those in favour? That's all. That application is approved. Thank you. Thank you. And the next item on the agenda is 78 Kings Drive, Edgware. OK, so this application relates to the proposed erection of a part single storey, part two storey side and rear extension, together with the retention of an existing unlawful outbuilding. The property sits in a permanent location on the inside of a perpendicular bend in Kings Drive, forming part of the original planned layout and constitutes the end of a symmetrical grouping of eight properties. What's going on here? The existing outbuilding sits to the side and rear adjacent to the boundary with number 76 and fronting the highway. Planning permission for its retention has already been refused three times, is subject to an extant enforcement notice and has been dismissed on appeal twice. The ground floor footprint would extend to a depth of three point five metres to the rear and project greater than half the width of the existing dwelling to the side. Whilst at first floor level would extend two point five metres to the side. Whilst of a relatively modest footprint at first floor level, the proposal would further extend beyond the return building line, contrary to the expectations of the design guidance SPD. And similarly would not be set down from the ridge line or back from the other flank of the building, appearing overly dominant to the modest proportions of the original property and unbalancing the symmetry of both the pair and the grouping as a whole. Again, contrary to the expectations of the SPD. In respect of the outbuilding, it is proposed to retain the building whilst incorporating an alteration to lower the height of the rear elevation by naught point three metres for a depth of naught point seven metres, leaving it two point eight metres in height along the common boundary with number 76. With regard to the previous reason for refusal, this modest amendment is not considered to overcome the harm to amenity or to materially reduce the impact of the outbuilding in the street scene. The results of its scale and prominent the siding on that basis the application is recommended for refusal. Thank you. We have two speakers registered for this both in support of the application I believe Nigel suffering and Emma catamom. I suppose that those here don't know which which order you want to speak in if you're both here. Thank you if you can take a seat and put the microphone on. There's a button on the microphone with a face on it, you can see that. That's it. If you can introduce yourself, you'll have three minutes to speak, you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Okay, thank you. My name is Emma catamom I'm one of the neighbours, and I'd like to give this full this application, my full approval. I think that putting a pitched roof on the existing garage is a great idea, as it does rectify the height issue, and it keeps costs down and minimises unnecessary building disruption to the neighbours. It is more eco friendly to make a small adjustment to an existing building than it is to completely demolish it unnecessarily to build a new one. And as I'm sure we'd all agree, we're all trying to do our bit to be as eco friendly as possible, and lowering the roof from one side is a great compromise, as it resolves the height issue and still enables him to keep his tool work fan inside, allowing more parking for residents and keeping his van and tools more secure from thefts, and it avoids creating an eyesore for some neighbours who apparently hate looking at vans parked on the street. I live at number 66 Kings drive and like us his entrance door is on the side of his house, but because his properties on a corner there's been some confusion over which side is the front elevation. As I understand it from a legal perspective, the front elevation is determined by which postcode is used for an address. HA8 8EF is the postcode his property was legally allocated, therefore there's no question that from an official standpoint, his front elevation must be where his bay window is, and not where his entrance door is. He has got a porch on the side of his house, but that feature was there when he first bought the property. He's not changed or added on to that. So from the day his house was sold to him with the existing porch in place, it was classed as an HA8 8EF postcode, which relates to the houses bay window and the properties that run in line with his. Plus the original application to build the existing garage was approved, so I don't see how the front elevation is suddenly in question. His garage is forward of the side elevation, which is completely legal and correct. I think the plans for his extension are great. It makes sense to move the entrance door to the front elevation where the bay window is, as the existing porch is really old, is drafty and has no insulation, so that part of the house needs upgrading, plus it resolves any future confusion over which side the front is. And on a personal level, the red tape that's been going on with this for so many years delaying this build has been a massive cause of stress and anxiety to the applicant. He's been battling depression for many years, his mental health has really suffered because of all of this, and if this application is refused again, the financial stress and emotional damage this could do really concerns me. I know it's just another item on your itinerary, but please, it's easy to look at people as numbers sometimes, but this is someone's life and this is going to massively affect him. Thank you. Right, thank you, thank you, and I hope you will realise from hearing that we don't treat people as numbers, we do fully take everything into account. Oh good, thank you. Are there any questions from the speaker? Councillor Roberts. Just want to establish, is the proposed extensions, is that in keeping with the rest of the road? Yes, it looks really nice, he's used the same brickwork and it's been there for many years now and everyone, there's a lot of support in the neighbourhood, if you see all the people for it, everyone's really keen on it staying as it is, or just being lowered slightly to appease the height. Is it in keeping again with the size of the other properties in that road? It's on the corner, so it doesn't really affect the other properties too much. It is still part of the road? Of course, of course, yeah, the garage does come forward, as you can see from the pictures, but it doesn't affect anything. Any more questions from the speaker? No, thank you very much. Thank you for listening. And is Mr Saffery here? Nigel Saffery? No, so we have Councillor Mering Smith who would like to speak. I think you know the procedure, if you can put the microphone on, you have three minutes to speak, if you can have warning when you have one minute left. Thank you very much, Chair. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, obviously I'm the Councillor for Edgware, Nick Mering-Smith. I've asked for this to be brought to the committee for some very specific reasons. I feel that this is an application that has been bedevilled by poor advice from professional advisors. It has caused huge problems for the applicant. The actual location of this site on a corner is very similar to two other sites on corners along King's Drive, which I've personally looked at two or three times now. And it doesn't seem to me the proposal is any more significantly out of keeping than the other two sites at number 81 or number 156. Clearly, there can be disagreements about this. One of the concerns I have is that in the application response in the papers, it points out that there was no pre-application consultation. I noticed that this is the case on another application this evening. What I've been told is that professional advisors are advised not to go for pre-application consultation because it seems to have very little effect in the final outcome of the application. I'm not sure whether this is correct or not, but I think it's certainly something the planning department needs to look at because ideally people would go for pre-application consultation and then have a much smoother process of going through. This particular site has been bedevilled by these problems of the height of the garage, partly, and the location. There was a garage, a sort of structure, exactly on the position of the outbuilding as of now. Unfortunately, nobody has retained a photo of it because obviously it was demolished some years ago. The height of the building should be two and a half metres allowed from the highest point of the grounds surrounding it. Unfortunately, that was never put in the original application for a certificate when it should have been a planning application. You have one minute remaining. Thank you. And I therefore feel that because of the problems that have surrounded this and the fact that the principal objector would be number 76, who has withdrawn his objection and is now supportive of this whole application, I believe it's one of these where the committee could justifiably consider not following the officer's recommendation but actually approving this particular application. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? No. Thank you very much, Councillor. And then we have either the applicant or the agent. Mr Patel or Mr Avani. Thank you. Thank you. Again, if you could introduce. I'm the applicant for the application that's been made. Mr Avani for number 78 King's Drive. Can you hear me OK? Lovely. All right. Good evening, committee members. This application is to primarily apply for permission to extend my house. Due to its location and roof pitch, I am unable to do much in the way of loft or side extensions through permitted development rights to make it into a family home. The site allows for proposed development without impacting on amenity or character. This application for the house extension and garages what I had wanted to be submitted in 2019, but my architect mistakenly submitted a separate application for the outhouse, resulting in a lawful certificate being granted, signed by the service director. This application in relation to the garage built in 2019 is what was offered as a compromise by the prosecution enforcement officer in 2022 after having discussed it with her colleagues. But she left the council before I was able to conclude the matter with her. Under threat of prosecution, I have tried to come to find to find a compromise as I'm not wanting to be taken to court, despite being told on numerous occasions that the garage has been built correctly. I feel that the previous refusals are now depriving me of being able to grant anything which would allow investment and improvement to make my home into a family home. I have worked hard and safe to be able to stay in the neighbourhood where I have made many friends and refuse to be driven from my home, but I wish to improve my home by way of regenerating in my neighbourhood. Several applicants within a 500-yard radius of my house have been granted similar approvals. This application has the unprecedented support of the neighbourhood by going online to show their support. The enforcement, which is over a few inches in height, would make no difference if I am pushed to reduce it but will financially cripple me. Demolition of what has been built is so harsh a punishment, despite the case being recommended for closure in September 2021. I built the garage to house my van following numerous break-ins and damage by hit-and-run drivers. It allows me to make a living and my work life is here. All I want is to improve my home and working life. I am a self-employed, hard-working man who is struggling to make a living having gone through five years of hell. My mental and physical health have taken a hammering and with not being able to sleep properly due to the stress and anxiety to the point of having had suicidal thoughts on numerous occasions. I ask you to please question me about this application, or the previous one submitted, as they will shape my life from here on. That's better, thank you. Any questions? Members, Councillor Roberts? I just want to ask you, have you considered reducing the height of that garage? That is what the compromise that I have actually submitted, which was in conjunction with this request made by the prosecution officer in 2022, is exactly what I have actually submitted in the application that has been submitted. The compromise, there was actually never an issue with regards to the size of the garage, it was always the height, and the issue was where the highest adjacent point is measured from. The council had been out in September 2021, the deputy enforcement manager and the enforcement officer, along with Mr Joe Henry, who was the previous head of planning law at the council, came out, took measurements and deemed that it was only approximately 9 centimetres over on the backside, which is what I'm proposing to cut, and they recommended that they place be closed. And I'm now, three years or more now, still fighting this ridiculous situation. I don't know what to do. I have submitted an application which is to cut the corner off and reduce the height on the backside, if only to make arrangements and, you know, concede something. It's built correctly because the highest adjacent point is the internal garden ground level of the property, and that is measured by the council on numerous occasions, and it is 2.5 metres, which is what the guidelines stipulate. I note that a previous application for the outbuilding was refused and then went to appeal, and the appeal failed. So you're saying that the adjustment you do now meets the terms of the refusal of the appeal? I'm sorry, I don't fully understand your questioning. Sorry, are you saying that the adjustment that you've made now, the slight adjustment to the roof, means that it fits with what was required at the appeal? Given that I was given a lawful certificate, the property in terms of the outhouse, in terms of the footprint of it, is completely compliant with the lawful certificate. The issue was the height, and I have been fighting for the last five and a half years to establish exactly where it is that that height is measured from, and it has been concluded over three years ago that it was correct, because it's internal that that is where the highest measurement is from. I actually have an email from one of the planning officers who's got an MSC and a BSC confirming that I had built it correctly, and that there was nothing for me to worry about, and the neighbour had no cause for objection, and the council should have passed the application. This case should have been closed back in 2021. Sorry, if I may, an enforcement notice that was issued initially in 2019 only took one measurement, that was from the outside on the street, never to be taken from the inside where the highest realization point is. And that was confirmed by the compliance enforcement officer that came out last year at the behest of the prosecution enforcement officer to give them the best that they can do with, and he actually turned around and said to me that there isn't anything for you to worry about, there is nothing wrong with this application. And he gave me the option of appealing, and that was the only thing that he gave me. I was waiting for him to turn around and tell me what I needed to do, and he didn't tell me, the only thing he did was to turn around and tell me, my suggestion is that you make an arrangement, appeal this decision, otherwise non-compliance would mean that I'd be prosecuted. So you appealed and the appeal was turned down? My appeal was turned down, well yes, but the thing is, it's, what can I do? You know, if you get somebody who comes along with a subjective view of an application, they come along, as I said to you, the whole of my, the crux of this matter is, the footprint of the outhouse is in accordance with the lawful certificate that was issued. Thank you, we'll now ask the officers to comment on that, though I do notice that one of their reasons for refusal is not just the height, it's the size, height, and sighting of the outbuilding. But I'll ask officers to explain about the lawfulness or otherwise of that. Any further questions? Sorry, can I just say, I believe that I didn't need to even be in a position of having to appeal and go through the expense of appealing last time. I was given no choice, the compliance officer came out on site with the liaison officer at the behest of the prosecution enforcement officer, and they turned round and told me that there wasn't anything for me to do, the only option I had was to appeal it. Yes, thank you. I mean that is some time ago, I don't know who those officers are. We are dealing with the report as it is now on the recommendations that the officers who are dealing with this now have put forward, and taking into account the result of the appeal which failed. Thank you very much. We'll ask officers to comment on this a bit more. So any further questions to the officers, other than explaining a bit more about the lawfulness or unlawfulness and the failure of the appeal and whether this meets conditions with that? Right, so the certificate that was issued some time back was issued on the basis of plans that didn't correctly illustrate the topography of the site. That was the first issue. As it happens, the certificate ought not to have been made lawful anyway, because the development extends forward as a principal elevation. But having issued a certificate under section 192, then you make that development conclusively presumed to be lawful unless there is a subsequent change in the material circumstances. Like I say, because of the initial issue that it wasn't drawn correctly, it couldn't be relied upon anyway because it was impossible to realise the development that had been portrayed. So the certificate is essentially of no value. So then it becomes an issue of, you can't make it lawful retrospectively. So again, that avenue of a full bad position is of no value. So then it becomes a question of whether or not it is acceptable in policy terms, which is the decision that was made pursuant to the retention applications and, as outlined originally, they were all refused and all of the refusals have been upheld on appeal thus far. is also required of the local authorities.

Transcript

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. It's past 7 o'clock so we're going to start the meeting now. Could we have some quiet in the public gallery please and start the meeting. My name is Claire Farrier, I'm chair of this planning committee. Just make sure I switched on. Can you hear now? Is that better? OK, yeah, I think we've turned the speakers on better. Yeah, I think the speakers at the back have been turned on. I say thank you very much for attending this evening. I will ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves and then the planning officers and the legal officer and governance officer. So my name is Claire Farrier, chairing this committee, I'm a councillor for East Binchley. Councillor Roberts? Councillor Arjun Mitra, member for East Binchley Ward. Councillor Neill, member for Collinale South Ward. Councillor Joshua Conway, Henven Ward. Johnathan Mills, planning manager, Terese. Kate Foster, planning officer. Edith Lones, senior planner. Johnathan Mills, planning manager. We'll try and speak closely into the microphones and we're trying to get the speakers seen to at the back. So if we can carry on. Mark Spinkthorpe, planning manager. Good evening, Heidi Erskoe, planning manager. Tina Frowagy, legal advisor. Good evening, Farah Hossain, governance officer and clerk to the committee. Thank you. Now, we ask that you remain seated during the meeting unless you're called to the table to address the committee. And please note that the meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in-law and by the council. By attending, either in person or online, you may be picked up on recordings. And the council recordings are covered by our privacy notice, which can be found on our website. Now, for each application, the planning officer will present the application. The speakers will then have three minutes each to address the committee. And you'll be told when you have a minute left. Then there's the opportunity for members of the committee to ask you questions. And following that, the committee will discuss and determine the application and we will announce the decision. So if we move on to the agenda, I've got the minutes of the last meeting, which was on the supplementary agenda, is everything that? I'm pretty happy with the minutes of the last meeting. Thank you. Absence of members. Councillor, do you want to speak? Councillor Greenspan has been taken to hospital this evening. Councillor Simberg may be on his way. OK, thank you. All the other members of the committee are here. Any declaration of interests? No, and there's no dispensations granted. Everybody has seen the addendum that was sent out and published this afternoon. So moving on to the first application on the agenda, which is the Church Hall of St Mary the Virgin in Barnet. Thank you, Chair. So the item is involving Church Hall at St Mary the Virgin Church of England in Camden Way. The proposal involves demolition and rebuild of the existing two-storey Church Hall. Members would recall this application was heard at 9th of October committee meeting. It was called in by Councillor Weisel on Heritage grounds. After discussions, a motion was moved that the application be minded to approve. And the application was deferred to next meeting for determination on the grounds that the benefits of a new Church Hall to the local community outweighed the harm listed in the officer's report. And that the redevelopment would fit the character of the local area. So for clarity, where an application is recommended for refusal and the committee is minded to approve the application, the item is deferred to the next meeting to enable re-notification to take place and to give an opportunity for objectors to the application and the applicant to attend the subsequent meeting and make representations and for a re-hearing of the application to take place. So this is in accordance with the council's constitution. So the application has been brought back to this committee with suggested conditions in the event the committee overturned the officer's recommendation. The applicant's agent has had cite and agreed to suggested conditions which are attached as an appendix to the report. So the Church Hall is outlined in red and is set within the grounds of the grey two star listed parish church. Therefore forms part of the church curtilage. There is no boundary between the actual Church Hall and the church itself. The site is within the green belt and Monckenhati Conservation Area. It is within an area of archaeological significance and is covered by an article four direction. The common opposite is this location here and it's a site of importance for nature conservation. Church Hall is locally listed and previous extensions have been granted. However the applicant states that the foundations are not sound enough to restore the original building. This is the proposed site plan. The redevelopment of the Church Hall would be approximately one metre deeper and one metre wider. And it is also one metre set in from this boundary or its original position. The extensions would be a single storey to the south side and two storey to the north and would be a two storey building. These are the site photographs. Again more site photographs. This is a view from the common and this is the rear elevation of the hall facing the grey two star church building. Again more site photos. These are the existing plans and sections and these are the existing elevations. Proposed elevations and section. You will note on the existing elevation there's a limited number of windows. On the proposed there are five windows at ground level and six windows at first floor level facing the church graveyard. These are the proposed elevations. As you will see two storey to the north side and a single storey to the south. The fact that the property falls within the green belt it has to comply with the volume calculations. So the volume proposed on this proposal would be approximately 26.6 cubic metres. Which is over the allowance stated within the residential design guidance. So this is a proposed CGI of what the building would look like. And these are the proposed plans. Again this is a proposed plan. It's a comparison. It's an overlay of the proposed over the existing footprint. As you can see the red line is what's existing there at the minute and the proposal is the black lines. So one metre further forward and one metre deeper on the sides. OK. Existing and proposed site plan. These are just volume calculations. Heritage officers have objected on the grounds that there would be substantial harm to non-designated heritage assets through the demolition and significant harm to Grade 2 star listed church building and harm the conservation area. Heritage officers also comment that church house makes a good contribution to the setting of the curtilage of the listed church building and the proposal adds significant number of windows to the west elevation. So the proposal would result in an unbalanced design that would increase the number of window openings allowing direct views into the church yard. As noted in the planning history of the site extensions has previously been approved. However as mentioned earlier on the applicants have not provided sufficient justification to say why the extension cannot be restored as it stands. And why a demolition is required. I have nothing further to add to the report. We did have a speaker this evening, Councillor Farrier, but I believe he's unable to attend. We've got representations to read out. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. We had an objector who didn't speak last time, Guy Braithwaite, another AP sent. Something you're going to read out. This is a statement from Guy Braithwaite. I have been invited to speak at the planning committee about the proposal to demolish Moncken Hadley Church Hall and replace it with a new hall on the same site. I'm sorry to say I am unable to come this evening owing to illness. I support the ultimate objective of Moncken Hadley Church and the restoration committee to provide a hall and facilities fit for the community's needs. However, it is my view that, and that of the planning officer, that the case is not made that the present building could not be stabilised and repaired, thereby enabling it to be extended and refitted for modern use. In the absence of an options appraisal assessing the feasibility and cost of remedial work, as opposed to rebuild, the case for demolition is not made. Since the last meeting, the applicant has invited me and colleagues from the Barnet Society to a meeting on site to discuss the proposals. It's a shame that this has not been possible for that to happen before tonight's meeting, but I do look forward to any possibility of finding a better outcome than the demolition of a locally listed building. The officer's report recommending refusal hasn't changed since the last meeting, nor has any new evidence been put forward. Agreeing it now would set a bad precedent for locally listed buildings and conservation areas. We need to ensure that demolitions of heritage assets are not agreed without a sound case being made. That's essential for protecting Barnet's heritage as well as its environment. Thank you, Mr Braithwaite. Mr Braithwaite isn't here, we're not able to ask him any questions on his statement. We have Councillor Weiser, do you wish to speak again? Either speak again or just answer any further questions. Thank you, Chair. I wasn't planning to speak again unless the committee had any further questions from last time. I'm aware, I think, that Councillor Mitchell wasn't here last time, if he had any questions. Councillor Carrick. Thank you. My question is to reinforce the officer's question about proving the viability of restoring the original building. They feel that they have not had sufficient evidence to prove that it's not viable. Is there anything you can add to that? I know that this was obviously answered by the agent at the last meeting. And I know from conversations that I've had with the Churchill Committee and information that's been provided to me in the past, that the cost of rebuilding what is already there would be twice what is, roughly twice what is currently estimated for demolishing and building anew. And obviously building anew would allow them to slightly move it off the waterway that is running underneath part of the building and making the foundations unstable, which would help secure the building for the future. That is my understanding. Obviously, much more technical detail was covered by the agent at the last meeting. The questions? No, thank you very much. We have the agent, Alan Cox. Mr Cox here. No, I think the agent is not speaking again, if we can remember, but he did speak last time and addressed those issues of viability of the building. So we come back to the officers now. Any comments or questions, further questions to the officers? Have you had any further dialogue concerning the viability of retaining the existing hall? No, no further dialogue has been taken place. Mr Roberts. I just wanted to check, do you accept that the building in its current condition is not fit for purpose? Well, we haven't actually said that. The applicant has said that in its current situation, it's not sound enough for extensions to be implemented to the existing building because the foundations are not safe enough. So hence the reason why it would be more viable for the existing church building to be demolished and rebuilt. And if I can just confirm, because we indicated that we may like to approve this application, the last one, you've come back with conditions. Did you say that these have been seen and OKed by the other? I know they don't need to. We can put conditions on as we want, but the applicant is OK with the conditions. So the conditions are attached as an appendix to the report and which should be within the agenda items. So there's a number of pre-commencement conditions that needs to be agreed with the applicant and that's been agreed. So we have emailed the suggested conditions to the agent and he has confirmed that he's in agreement. Thank you. Has anybody got any questions about the conditions or comments about the conditions that may be put on this? No. So if we go to a vote on this, the officers are recommending refusal. All those in favour of the officers recommendation to refuse? One. And those against the officers recommendation to refuse? So if somebody would like to propose approval with the reasons for approval? And a seconder? Councillor Callick. The reasons last time that the community benefit. Yes, sorry. The community benefit. So all those in favour of approving with those terms and with the conditions that are in the report? Four against. One. Thank you very much. That application is approved with the conditions that were added. And we move on to the next item, which is 7 Northfield Road. Hi, good evening councillors and members of public. I'm here to present an application for a change of use from a C3 dwelling house to a Class C2 children's home for the care up to three children at 7 Northfield Road. So the application site is a two-storey semi-detached house on the northwestern side of Northfield Road. The area is predominantly residential in character. So it's situated on a corner plot and has previously been extended. So these are the area photos. Site photos showing that they have got a rear gardens of about 130 square metres and to the front there is on-site parking for two car parks. There's no external alterations, but mainly regarding to internal changes, ground floor will be converted to reception and play area. And for the first floor plan, there will be three children's homes sized 10.8 square metres to about 14 square metres, which is considered quite spacious and there will be two staff working areas. So the key arguments of this application is whether the use of a children's care home would materially impact the character of the area by virtue of the number of comings and goings and any associated impacts in terms of noise and safety. So the applicant has submitted additional information regarding staff arrangement. There will be likely comings and goings happened at 7am and latest at 10.30. So the proposal is unlikely to result in an intensification of the use beyond that expected of a single household. So again, this is a similar approach to the recently granted permission at 49 St James and Asian House. Just a key note that the area itself is quite poorly accessible as it has a PTA of 1B. However, the needs have been substantially justified. Say the house is about 15 to 18 minutes walk from Cox Foster and New Barnet underground. And also in terms of safety, map police were consulted and there are some numbers of risk management strategy has been further submitted in order to provide mitigation measures to safeguard the children and also lower the impact to the disturbance to the neighbour. So therefore, on balance, the needs has been justified and also the harm to the character and neighbouring amenities are unbalanced acceptable. Therefore, officers is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Thank you. Thank you. We have the one objector, Jay Welland, Mr Welland, if you'd like to come forward. Let's take a seat and turn the microphone on. There's a button with a face on it. And then if you can introduce yourself and you have three minutes to speak, you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. My name is John Welland. I just must explain to you I have been diagnosed with vote cancer in the last month, so I hope that you'll give me some leeway. As you can see, I have a slight problem with my speech. Just a second. Can we start the clock when he starts rather than include the preamble? Okay, I'm ready. First of all, with regard to this, I'd like to talk about money, finance. This is a for profit, not Dr Bernardo's, a for profit care home with three children. The income of which could be in excess of a million pounds. With regard to finance for the residents, it could mean a reduction in their property value of anywhere between 10% to 20%. When you're selling a property, you must declare any adverse events or project that can be against someone wishing to buy a property. Our most important worry is antisocial behaviour. The possibility of antisocial behaviour is best described in the application by Sunray Sanctuary. We're talking about security. They say that security is a protection against external threats such as relative income. Also gang members identified as a possibility that can become a problem with the care home. I cannot believe that the Planning Committee and Barnet Council will allow this to be dumped in the middle of a peaceful family area. Not to mention a brand new nursery of 100 places within 150 yards of the property. I'd also like to state now we should have had two speakers. One of you could have spoken about problems with the property. No other speakers came forward. We could have another speaker if one had come forward, but I don't think anyone came forward. So if you can just briefly summarise now. You've come to the end of your three minutes. To summarise on behalf of the residents, this will not be the end of our objections. And to be perfectly fair to the project, I think you will be seeing legal action either by a group or by individuals. Unfortunately my medical condition doesn't allow me to enlarge any further, as does my three minutes. You can just wait a minute and see if there's any questions. Anybody have any questions? No? Thank you very much. You can return to your seat if you prefer to what you had said. No questions answered. What I would say is that some of the concerns you raised, I think the applicant and/or the agent are going to speak. We will ask the applicant to confirm some of the things that you said. So next we have the applicant, Mrs Henry, or the agent. So you're the applicant, you're going to be running the home so you can answer some of the questions. Yes, sure. Can you hear me? Okay, thank you. If you can introduce yourself and you'll have three minutes to speak and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Yes. Hi, can you hear me properly? Hi, my name is Hagor Henry. I have been an officer-register Tri-Mander for the past seven years, and for several years it has been my aspiration to establish a children care home. Over the last two years I have actively pursued this dream, working diligently to bring it to fruition. We can accommodate up to a maximum of three young people. The same children will use the positive provided. We can accommodate three cars in our private driveway. The visits to the care home are not very frequent and can easily be managed by scheduling the visits. We aim to create a safe and nurturing environment, enabling children to recover from past trauma and grow to achieve their full potential. We work with therapeutic parenting approach, which is key in caring for those who have experienced neglect, abuse, significant development trauma in the lower years. We were chosen this property because local risk assessment is positive, the size and layout of the property, surrounding of the property, house features, five double bedrooms and a study, a spacious living room, three bathrooms with shower toilet and sink, a large kitchen with dining room, a garden, a private driveway at the front of the house that can accommodate three cars. Three children will have their own double size bedroom with plenty of space for bed, wardrobe, desk in a family style arrangement. This five bedroom property has home-like atmosphere compared to a larger home. It is a smaller setting and it will accommodate only three young people, which can be beneficial for them as well as for the workers. Some reinstructive beliefs in promoting equality, valuing diversity and working inclusively. The management strategies for ensuring the safety of the children and the wider community at 7 Northfield Road includes comprehensive staff training, robust policies and procedures, and a secure environment and a child-centric approach. This children care home will be fully secured and comply with health and safety regulations. If you are in care, your local authorities or corporate parents, this means they should act like loving parents would and provide with the best possible support. UK Parliament statement by Richard Maclean, The planning system should not be a barrier to providing homes for most vulnerable children, also stated, To support effective delivery, unitary authorities should work with commissioners to access local need and to closely engage the support application. We believe this property is situated in a lovely, quiet, residential area. It could be the perfect, stable, loving home for three children who need it at the most, where the individual needs can be met. This is the right home in the right place. This is a unique opportunity where we can provide a stable, safe and loving home for three young people. This is your opportunity to closely engage to support this application. Last time, thank you. Right, thank you. You heard Mr Welland and his concerns about the children who may be in this home and the anti-social behaviour that may result, so I wonder if you can mention how that would be managed? I saw your staffing regulation, it's going to be one-to-one staffing, so I assume it would be suitable supervision at all times, but I wonder if you could comment on how you manage any possible anti-social behaviour? Yes, the care home will have strict protocols in place. We will comply with all relevant legal requirements. As I mentioned, the management strategies for ensuring safety of the children. We will have comprehensive staff training, robust policies and procedures to follow, a secure environment and a child safety approach. We have a lot of policies, including safeguarding policy, behaviour management policy. At Sunway Sanctuary, we follow therapeutic parenting, informed approach to working with children. We promote an emotional connection between the child and the adult, increase the child's sense of security and trust. We will have basically a lot of policies to follow. Presumably you will be registered and regulated by Ofsted? Staff training will include protection, safeguarding policy first, emergency response. The staff will give therapeutic parenting training as well. So we are promoting the children positive behaviour and teach them how to be positive. The gang members, it's only saying if somebody turns up and frets the children, then the staff will be trained how to react, but it's not necessarily going to happen. Usually there are no issues because we are only accommodating a maximum of three children with staff member ratio one to one, never forward behind, or even more staff member for one child. So obviously we supervise correctly, which is not going to allow the children to do any bad behaving. And that's how therapeutic parenting to teach them how to be positive, reaction to other people and for the community. So it's all kind of making sure it's the safety of the community. Yes, thank you. Mr. Welland spoke here, but we saw from the objections that came in that other people have similar concerns. So are you going to be able to make a contact number available to local people in case they have any concerns when there's an operation they can raise with you? I mean, it's not strictly a planning matter, that I must say, but it's just from the point of view of the neighbours that are they going to be able to contact you if they have any concerns? Sorry, do I need to answer any more question? As I say, that's not strictly a planning matter, but from the point of view of the concerns that have been raised. OK. It's how you would respond to those. Are you going to be able to provide a contact number for people if they raise concerns when the home is in operation? We're hardly here because it's the... Sorry, yes. Yes, sure. I would like to add that we understand the concern, but it will be only for the children. It's like a small family. It's not going to be here to make any nuisance or any disturbance. We aim to make sure it's not a disturbance whatsoever to the neighbourhood. Councillor Canwick. Thank you. The report notes that the Met Police have reviewed your documents, which I assume is your policies as well. So I don't have any concerns about that, but what I would like to know is what experience you've had in managing a children's home. We will have management. That's not a planning matter. OK. That's up to Ofsted when they register and regulate the service to deal with that. I hope this is a relevant question. How long do your carers normally resident for? How many years? Are they there for an extended period of time? OK. We have a very high expectation for the staff. They have to be the right experience, skills and experience. So all the qualifications have to be... We have to go through Ofsted registration and we have to comply all the legal requirements. And one of the legal requirements, they have to have relevant qualifications, otherwise we can't open in the first place. If they meet those qualifications on average, I appreciate it's not an absolute figure, but how long would they stay in place? Well, we try to aim for a small minimum of turnover and make sure the staff and children, everybody happy and not making any disturbance to the neighbourhood. Sorry, you're asking about the children who are going to be living there, how long they'll be there? No, I'm talking years. It depends, but we make sure they are happy so they stay as long as possible because the less turnover is the better for the children. Is that the question? Because we haven't got the staff yet, we have to go through Ofsted registration first. I'm wondering, on average, how long do the carers stay in place? If they are happy, four years. Okay, fine, that's the answer I was after. Thank you. Any more questions, Councillor Conway? There's a clear demand in Barnet for family housing. What demand or what data do you have to show there's a need for this within this area? Sorry, can you repeat the question? There's a clear demand in Barnet for family houses. This would take away a family house. What demand is there, what data do you have to show that there's a demand for this sort of home within Barnet? Okay, the demand is high, the waiting time at least six months, and they're placing children frequently miles away, really miles away or more from their environment, which, as Rachel McLean stated, it's good for the children to be staying with family and friends in the same environment. So it's a very high demand, I would say. Any more questions? No, thank you very much. Any questions for the officers or comments? I would like to comment that we do know as Councillors that there is a big shortage of children's homes and a need for children's homes, and children's services are themselves trying to create a number of these. Those of us who are on the corporate parenting committee know that there's a particular demand for homes for children with emotional needs who are very often placed far away from the borough and far away from their family's any contact. So I'm not saying that this home would be used, it depends how it's assessed by the council when it's open, whether we would place children there, but there is a big need for this type of home. So if there's no further comments, we'll go to the vote. The officer's recommendation is to approve. All those in favour? That's all. That application is approved. Thank you. Thank you. And the next item on the agenda is 78 Kings Drive, Edgware. OK, so this application relates to the proposed erection of a part single storey, part two storey side and rear extension, together with the retention of an existing unlawful outbuilding. The property sits in a permanent location on the inside of a perpendicular bend in Kings Drive, forming part of the original planned layout and constitutes the end of a symmetrical grouping of eight properties. What's going on here? The existing outbuilding sits to the side and rear adjacent to the boundary with number 76 and fronting the highway. Planning permission for its retention has already been refused three times, is subject to an extant enforcement notice and has been dismissed on appeal twice. The ground floor footprint would extend to a depth of three point five metres to the rear and project greater than half the width of the existing dwelling to the side. Whilst at first floor level would extend two point five metres to the side. Whilst of a relatively modest footprint at first floor level, the proposal would further extend beyond the return building line, contrary to the expectations of the design guidance SPD. And similarly would not be set down from the ridge line or back from the other flank of the building, appearing overly dominant to the modest proportions of the original property and unbalancing the symmetry of both the pair and the grouping as a whole. Again, contrary to the expectations of the SPD. In respect of the outbuilding, it is proposed to retain the building whilst incorporating an alteration to lower the height of the rear elevation by naught point three metres for a depth of naught point seven metres, leaving it two point eight metres in height along the common boundary with number 76. With regard to the previous reason for refusal, this modest amendment is not considered to overcome the harm to amenity or to materially reduce the impact of the outbuilding in the street scene. The results of its scale and prominent the siding on that basis the application is recommended for refusal. Thank you. We have two speakers registered for this both in support of the application I believe Nigel suffering and Emma catamom. I suppose that those here don't know which which order you want to speak in if you're both here. Thank you if you can take a seat and put the microphone on. There's a button on the microphone with a face on it, you can see that. That's it. If you can introduce yourself, you'll have three minutes to speak, you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Okay, thank you. My name is Emma catamom I'm one of the neighbours, and I'd like to give this full this application, my full approval. I think that putting a pitched roof on the existing garage is a great idea, as it does rectify the height issue, and it keeps costs down and minimises unnecessary building disruption to the neighbours. It is more eco friendly to make a small adjustment to an existing building than it is to completely demolish it unnecessarily to build a new one. And as I'm sure we'd all agree, we're all trying to do our bit to be as eco friendly as possible, and lowering the roof from one side is a great compromise, as it resolves the height issue and still enables him to keep his tool work fan inside, allowing more parking for residents and keeping his van and tools more secure from thefts, and it avoids creating an eyesore for some neighbours who apparently hate looking at vans parked on the street. I live at number 66 Kings drive and like us his entrance door is on the side of his house, but because his properties on a corner there's been some confusion over which side is the front elevation. As I understand it from a legal perspective, the front elevation is determined by which postcode is used for an address. HA8 8EF is the postcode his property was legally allocated, therefore there's no question that from an official standpoint, his front elevation must be where his bay window is, and not where his entrance door is. He has got a porch on the side of his house, but that feature was there when he first bought the property. He's not changed or added on to that. So from the day his house was sold to him with the existing porch in place, it was classed as an HA8 8EF postcode, which relates to the houses bay window and the properties that run in line with his. Plus the original application to build the existing garage was approved, so I don't see how the front elevation is suddenly in question. His garage is forward of the side elevation, which is completely legal and correct. I think the plans for his extension are great. It makes sense to move the entrance door to the front elevation where the bay window is, as the existing porch is really old, is drafty and has no insulation, so that part of the house needs upgrading, plus it resolves any future confusion over which side the front is. And on a personal level, the red tape that's been going on with this for so many years delaying this build has been a massive cause of stress and anxiety to the applicant. He's been battling depression for many years, his mental health has really suffered because of all of this, and if this application is refused again, the financial stress and emotional damage this could do really concerns me. I know it's just another item on your itinerary, but please, it's easy to look at people as numbers sometimes, but this is someone's life and this is going to massively affect him. Thank you. Right, thank you, thank you, and I hope you will realise from hearing that we don't treat people as numbers, we do fully take everything into account. Oh good, thank you. Are there any questions from the speaker? Councillor Roberts. Just want to establish, is the proposed extensions, is that in keeping with the rest of the road? Yes, it looks really nice, he's used the same brickwork and it's been there for many years now and everyone, there's a lot of support in the neighbourhood, if you see all the people for it, everyone's really keen on it staying as it is, or just being lowered slightly to appease the height. Is it in keeping again with the size of the other properties in that road? It's on the corner, so it doesn't really affect the other properties too much. It is still part of the road? Of course, of course, yeah, the garage does come forward, as you can see from the pictures, but it doesn't affect anything. Any more questions from the speaker? No, thank you very much. Thank you for listening. And is Mr Saffery here? Nigel Saffery? No, so we have Councillor Mering Smith who would like to speak. I think you know the procedure, if you can put the microphone on, you have three minutes to speak, if you can have warning when you have one minute left. Thank you very much, Chair. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, obviously I'm the Councillor for Edgware, Nick Mering-Smith. I've asked for this to be brought to the committee for some very specific reasons. I feel that this is an application that has been bedevilled by poor advice from professional advisors. It has caused huge problems for the applicant. The actual location of this site on a corner is very similar to two other sites on corners along King's Drive, which I've personally looked at two or three times now. And it doesn't seem to me the proposal is any more significantly out of keeping than the other two sites at number 81 or number 156. Clearly, there can be disagreements about this. One of the concerns I have is that in the application response in the papers, it points out that there was no pre-application consultation. I noticed that this is the case on another application this evening. What I've been told is that professional advisors are advised not to go for pre-application consultation because it seems to have very little effect in the final outcome of the application. I'm not sure whether this is correct or not, but I think it's certainly something the planning department needs to look at because ideally people would go for pre-application consultation and then have a much smoother process of going through. This particular site has been bedevilled by these problems of the height of the garage, partly, and the location. There was a garage, a sort of structure, exactly on the position of the outbuilding as of now. Unfortunately, nobody has retained a photo of it because obviously it was demolished some years ago. The height of the building should be two and a half metres allowed from the highest point of the grounds surrounding it. Unfortunately, that was never put in the original application for a certificate when it should have been a planning application. You have one minute remaining. Thank you. And I therefore feel that because of the problems that have surrounded this and the fact that the principal objector would be number 76, who has withdrawn his objection and is now supportive of this whole application, I believe it's one of these where the committee could justifiably consider not following the officer's recommendation but actually approving this particular application. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? No. Thank you very much, Councillor. And then we have either the applicant or the agent. Mr Patel or Mr Avani. Thank you. Thank you. Again, if you could introduce. I'm the applicant for the application that's been made. Mr Avani for number 78 King's Drive. Can you hear me OK? Lovely. All right. Good evening, committee members. This application is to primarily apply for permission to extend my house. Due to its location and roof pitch, I am unable to do much in the way of loft or side extensions through permitted development rights to make it into a family home. The site allows for proposed development without impacting on amenity or character. This application for the house extension and garages what I had wanted to be submitted in 2019, but my architect mistakenly submitted a separate application for the outhouse, resulting in a lawful certificate being granted, signed by the service director. This application in relation to the garage built in 2019 is what was offered as a compromise by the prosecution enforcement officer in 2022 after having discussed it with her colleagues. But she left the council before I was able to conclude the matter with her. Under threat of prosecution, I have tried to come to find to find a compromise as I'm not wanting to be taken to court, despite being told on numerous occasions that the garage has been built correctly. I feel that the previous refusals are now depriving me of being able to grant anything which would allow investment and improvement to make my home into a family home. I have worked hard and safe to be able to stay in the neighbourhood where I have made many friends and refuse to be driven from my home, but I wish to improve my home by way of regenerating in my neighbourhood. Several applicants within a 500-yard radius of my house have been granted similar approvals. This application has the unprecedented support of the neighbourhood by going online to show their support. The enforcement, which is over a few inches in height, would make no difference if I am pushed to reduce it but will financially cripple me. Demolition of what has been built is so harsh a punishment, despite the case being recommended for closure in September 2021. I built the garage to house my van following numerous break-ins and damage by hit-and-run drivers. It allows me to make a living and my work life is here. All I want is to improve my home and working life. I am a self-employed, hard-working man who is struggling to make a living having gone through five years of hell. My mental and physical health have taken a hammering and with not being able to sleep properly due to the stress and anxiety to the point of having had suicidal thoughts on numerous occasions. I ask you to please question me about this application, or the previous one submitted, as they will shape my life from here on. That's better, thank you. Any questions? Members, Councillor Roberts? I just want to ask you, have you considered reducing the height of that garage? That is what the compromise that I have actually submitted, which was in conjunction with this request made by the prosecution officer in 2022, is exactly what I have actually submitted in the application that has been submitted. The compromise, there was actually never an issue with regards to the size of the garage, it was always the height, and the issue was where the highest adjacent point is measured from. The council had been out in September 2021, the deputy enforcement manager and the enforcement officer, along with Mr Joe Henry, who was the previous head of planning law at the council, came out, took measurements and deemed that it was only approximately 9 centimetres over on the backside, which is what I'm proposing to cut, and they recommended that they place be closed. And I'm now, three years or more now, still fighting this ridiculous situation. I don't know what to do. I have submitted an application which is to cut the corner off and reduce the height on the backside, if only to make arrangements and, you know, concede something. It's built correctly because the highest adjacent point is the internal garden ground level of the property, and that is measured by the council on numerous occasions, and it is 2.5 metres, which is what the guidelines stipulate. I note that a previous application for the outbuilding was refused and then went to appeal, and the appeal failed. So you're saying that the adjustment you do now meets the terms of the refusal of the appeal? I'm sorry, I don't fully understand your questioning. Sorry, are you saying that the adjustment that you've made now, the slight adjustment to the roof, means that it fits with what was required at the appeal? Given that I was given a lawful certificate, the property in terms of the outhouse, in terms of the footprint of it, is completely compliant with the lawful certificate. The issue was the height, and I have been fighting for the last five and a half years to establish exactly where it is that that height is measured from, and it has been concluded over three years ago that it was correct, because it's internal that that is where the highest measurement is from. I actually have an email from one of the planning officers who's got an MSC and a BSC confirming that I had built it correctly, and that there was nothing for me to worry about, and the neighbour had no cause for objection, and the council should have passed the application. This case should have been closed back in 2021. Sorry, if I may, an enforcement notice that was issued initially in 2019 only took one measurement, that was from the outside on the street, never to be taken from the inside where the highest realization point is. And that was confirmed by the compliance enforcement officer that came out last year at the behest of the prosecution enforcement officer to give them the best that they can do with, and he actually turned around and said to me that there isn't anything for you to worry about, there is nothing wrong with this application. And he gave me the option of appealing, and that was the only thing that he gave me. I was waiting for him to turn around and tell me what I needed to do, and he didn't tell me, the only thing he did was to turn around and tell me, my suggestion is that you make an arrangement, appeal this decision, otherwise non-compliance would mean that I'd be prosecuted. So you appealed and the appeal was turned down? My appeal was turned down, well yes, but the thing is, it's, what can I do? You know, if you get somebody who comes along with a subjective view of an application, they come along, as I said to you, the whole of my, the crux of this matter is, the footprint of the outhouse is in accordance with the lawful certificate that was issued. Thank you, we'll now ask the officers to comment on that, though I do notice that one of their reasons for refusal is not just the height, it's the size, height, and sighting of the outbuilding. But I'll ask officers to explain about the lawfulness or otherwise of that. Any further questions? Sorry, can I just say, I believe that I didn't need to even be in a position of having to appeal and go through the expense of appealing last time. I was given no choice, the compliance officer came out on site with the liaison officer at the behest of the prosecution enforcement officer, and they turned round and told me that there wasn't anything for me to do, the only option I had was to appeal it. Yes, thank you. I mean that is some time ago, I don't know who those officers are. We are dealing with the report as it is now on the recommendations that the officers who are dealing with this now have put forward, and taking into account the result of the appeal which failed. Thank you very much. We'll ask officers to comment on this a bit more. So any further questions to the officers, other than explaining a bit more about the lawfulness or unlawfulness and the failure of the appeal and whether this meets conditions with that? Right, so the certificate that was issued some time back was issued on the basis of plans that didn't correctly illustrate the topography of the site. That was the first issue. As it happens, the certificate ought not to have been made lawful anyway, because the development extends forward as a principal elevation. But having issued a certificate under section 192, then you make that development conclusively presumed to be lawful unless there is a subsequent change in the material circumstances. Like I say, because of the initial issue that it wasn't drawn correctly, it couldn't be relied upon anyway because it was impossible to realise the development that had been portrayed. So the certificate is essentially of no value. So then it becomes an issue of, you can't make it lawful retrospectively. So again, that avenue of a full bad position is of no value. Then it becomes a question of whether or not it is acceptable in policy terms, which is the decision that was made pursuant to the retention applications and, like I outlined originally, they were all refused and all of the refusals have been upheld on appeal thus far. It's also required of the local authority, and they're at risk if they don't do it, to determine applications in accordance with not just the development plan but also taking into account previous appeal decisions in particular. The application recognises the amendments that are proposed but, like in our lines, it's not considered that they go far enough to address the issues that have been previously applied to the refusal. So, hence, we're not really in a position to recommend it for approval. Was there anything else in particular you wanted to add? This is my life we're talking about. Yes, you have finished your presentation, you've answered questions, thank you very much. You've had your time. I've forgotten what I was going to ask you now. You should come back to me, Councillor Carrick. Thank you. Part of this application is the extensions, the rear and side extensions, which appear to be put in to sort of indicate the garage or part of the garage. Can we separate them from the garage, so look at the extensions separately from the garage? I think so, this is one application, so even if there's one part we don't agree with, we're dealing with this application as a whole, we can't on this occasion agree part of it and not part of it. I mean, I think you can, if it was, if the committee was of the opinion that the extensions to the house were okay, but the outbuilding wasn't, the application still needs to be refused, but the terms of the refusal would need to be amended. So you can sort of have that, that's part of the motion, if you like, and then we rephrase the refusal reasons, and that would be agreed with the chair afterwards before the decision that is issued. Just the other thing is, I understand that the garage, as far as the planning department is concerned, doesn't comply even with the amendment to the slope. Is there any other alternative to the structure that the applicant could work with the council to amend the structure that would comply? Well, I don't think that's a question I can really answer here, or that would necessarily be appropriate to this particular discussion, but that is certainly a question or discussion that would need to be had with the enforcement officers, because they're the ones that would choose whether or not otherwise to ultimately prosecute the notice. But it's not a question for me to answer here now, but for them to discuss down the line. The first speaker, I can't remember your name, sorry, mentioned about in regards to the postcode indicating which side, can you just explain the officer's opinion on that? Yeah, so for the purposes of planning, usually that would be the case. So in the technical guidance note for primitive development rights for householders, in the preface to that, it talks about definitions for the principal elevation, and it concedes that in the main, that would usually be the case. But where there's corner locations, then you have to take a view on a case-by-case basis. I mean, it specifically mentions, for example, porches forming part of the principal elevation, like that would be the elevation that would commonly be understood. So it's not necessarily the case that a definition used in one part of the law is the same when it's applied to a different part of the law. If this house was in a different place, how much of this planning would it be able to receive on primitive development? So if the principal elevation was the other flank of the house, then the footprint of the building as built may have been lawful, but not the height because of the topography, so not the entire building envelope. Thank you. Just two more points. On officers' understanding, the height is how much over? Possibly, well, so, it's not too far off the amended eaves' height at the rear. I mean, that much is probably correct, because, confusingly, the relevant point for the height in this site, because of the way the levels of the land were, the bottom of where you would measure up from is within the garden of the host property, but the top point you'd be measuring to would be the equivalent height of the rear site. So it's not like you just pick a bit and you measure that bit. You have to measure the relative height relative to a different point on the ground. So it's not entirely straightforward, but not much different from that which is being proposed as the amendment. Thank you. Just a general point. Having been on site, I can't really say reason why the size, height is disproportionate or the building is obtrusive, and a lot of what I've read in the report and some questions now seem quite technical and I don't understand, but being on site, it looked that it fitted in perfectly and therefore I will be voting against the recommendation. Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Roberts? Yes, you said that the certificates were issued in error. So if we were to prove that, we're asking for it to go to appeal straight away in that case? No, the issue of the certificate is irrelevant, effectively. The certificate was issued in error, but it couldn't have been realised anyway, and you can't make it lawful retrospectively. So it doesn't make any difference to the outcome. I mean, that question's been asked also in the pursuit of the previous appeals and dismissed by the Inspector. Any further comments or questions? Sorry, Councillor, did you have another question? Yes, I did. Thank you. Alright, so for the purpose of the record, when I say the certificate was issued in error, I mean that error was the error of the Local Planning Authority. But in any event, the plans depict something that could not be realised. But when I say an error in issuing it, it was our error in issuing it, because as was subsequently established at appeal, the outbuilding extends beyond the principal elevation and so it can't be lawful by virtue of the restrictions within the order itself. Sorry, just one question, please. No, I'm sorry, you've had your time. You've had plenty of time yourselves. Yes, we can have whatever time we want. I'm contesting the evidence that is being given here. The front elevation was actually established on the original drawings. The Council knew that that was the drawings that was there, that I said in my comment. Thank you, we heard your comment, thank you. If there's no more questions, we'll go to the vote. Now it seems to be quite complicated and to some extent, there are two parts to this. This is one application. So, the application is as it stands for the extensions to the house and for the outbuilding. The officers are recommending refusal. All those in favour of refusal. Three. All those against refusal. One. One not voting. So that application is refused. Thank you very much. And we move on to the next item on the agenda, which is Fenton House in Hadley Green. Waste of time, waste of time. Bloody point of turning up and you're going to refuse it anyway. Thank you for really considering it. The last panel just really wouldn't even listen and I do appreciate you asking questions and considering it. Thank you very much. So this application relates to Fenton House and it basically involves the alterations and reconstruction from main roof to basically include previous applications that have been approved. This is a two-storey single family dwelling house, which you can see in the bottom kind of centre image and also at the top here. So it was constructed in the 1980s in a mock Neo-Georgian style and it's located within the Monk and Hadley conservation area. So you can see basically its location here along Hadley Green West and this is kind of a wider conservation area. So we have to the right here, we have Pimlico House, which is a grade two statutory listed property. It lies directly adjacent to the host site and so the property benefits from kind of large amenity space to the rear and also off-street parking within the front forecourt. And it has been developed by virtue of a two-storey detached annex building and also outdoor pool and kind of pool house, which is extended along this northern boundary. And kind of when we look at the context of the surrounding area, properties tend to retain their original finish and this is kind of referenced in the character appraisal as well. So basically you have obviously the cream rendered listed property here, properties up here are kind of part rendered, but generally the kind of original finish with traditional features is maintained. So you can see the site photos here, so kind of as mentioned, it's constructed in a mock Neo-Georgian style. It's of a red brick finish with traditional architectural detailing, such as brick coining, window detailing and surrounds. And the property is shown as being a positive building on the townscape appraisal map and this is such by virtue of its designation. It's recognised as making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Monk and Hadley conservation area. And the planning inspector as well has also upheld this view in recent appeal decisions to kind of determine that the existing unvented property is a positive contributor to the conservation area. And kind of within the Monk and Hadley conservation area character appraisal, when it kind of references these properties of Fenton House and one surrounded and listed property, it talks about how they vary in style and quality of design, but they're attractive and remain largely altered and contribute positively to the conservation area. So you can see the existing plans here, so it kind of shows the property in its red brick finish. And then the proposed plans here, which incorporate the approved works and also it's worth noting there is a separate application pending consideration kind of in relation to the combination of the approved works and with the addition of the white render façade, as you can see. So in terms of the key kind of issues for this case, it's worth noting that we have a C4 number of objectives, that's including from the Monk and Hadley conservation area advisory committee. And the objective comments are kind of saying that the white render would kind of increase the problem of visibility of the property, it's kind of out of character and would appear more intrusive from front and back elevations. And heritage officers have also been consulted in the proposal and they have objected to any form of render at the site, so they're kind of against render in any form and consider it to have a harmful impact upon the character of the conservation area. So you can see here that any proposed render is considered to be unacceptable at the site, it's considered that the proposed white rendered façade would obscure the existing red brick finish and the architectural detailing, which are key characteristic features of the property and they contribute to its kind of positive building setting and also how it enhances the conservation area. So I think yeah, the loss of these architectural features would have a harmful impact on the character of the wider conservation area and it's also concerned that whilst it is set back from the front kind of street scene, it would conflict with and kind of compete with the appearance of a neighbouring listed property. So it's kind of, at the moment it's kind of set back and whilst the approved works have kind of increased the kind of bulk and mass of the property, given that it retains the existing red brick finish, it doesn't kind of appear prominent, whereas it's considered that the white rendered façade would kind of increase the contemporary nature, the traditional kind of more set back nature of the property would be eroded and it's considered that that would harm the conservation area. And also the inspector frequently upholds that even if a property isn't visible from the front in the conservation area, it can still kind of cause significant harm, any kind of change to design can still have an impact on the character of the conservation area, whether they are kind of visible or not from the public realm. So yeah, kind of leading on from that, I mean, there hasn't been, little justification has kind of been provided as to why the rendering should be acceptable. There has been reference to improving the energy efficiency of the building, but Historic England have produced recent guidance on energy efficiency and they have stated that where primary permission is required, the same approach should be taken to unlisted buildings and conservation areas as listed buildings, and that they wouldn't support external wall insulation, unlisted buildings or kind of within conservation areas. And also there's concern that by kind of a previous application, it would set a precedent for future development. So the potential future rendering of properties within conservation areas, not just limited to Monk and Hadley, but also other kind of conservation areas in the borough, and that that would kind of have a harmful detrimental impact upon kind of the conservation areas in this kind of surrounding area. So yeah, they're kind of the key points from this. Thank you. We don't have any speakers on this except for the agent, Scott Sampson. Yeah. Thank you. If you could introduce yourself and. Thank you. When we, when we, when we start, you'll have three minutes to speak, you'll be given a warning when you have. Okay, when you're ready. Thank you very much. Good evening chair members. My name is Andrew Scott, and acting agent in connection with this application. I'm a childhood architect practicing for 47 years. I've also been a resident of Hadley Green for some 43 years. I remember Fenton House being constructed in the early 1980s. Fenton House is constructed of soft red facing bricks incorporating a parapet on all elevations with brick coins built in the mock Neo Georgian style. There is a single objection to this application before you, which relates solely to the proposed render finish. Members will have now received the photos of the existing building which I've handed out. These show existing brick detailing and illustrate some poor qualities. Different bricks have been used for the plinths, for the plinth base, and the main facades. Sand cement fillets have been applied to the exposed brick coins to form a weathering detail to the porous bricks. The built quality is not to a high standard, and materials have deteriorated over the 40 years since its construction. The proposed render will be a simple smooth finish with a single mid-level band, similar to other Georgian properties in the area. The officers' reports state that the render will result in the building becoming obtrusive, inharmonious, and unsympathetic. Approximately half the buildings located in Hadley Green are rendered. Fenton House is probably the most inconspicuous building in the area, as it is sited some 50 metres back from the access drive, and behind a green screen of trees and shrubs. You have one minute remaining. Thank you. As an example, adjoining is Pimlico House, a detached render dwelling that is only three metres back from the shared access drive and without any screening. The applicant feels that the officer's statement is unjustified and made without supporting evidence. This is not a heritage asset, it is not statutory or locally listed. It is considered that the proposal will provide a quality building in an unpretentious style which will integrate well with its surroundings. The applicants respectfully ask the committee to provide a favourable recommendation with a condition for the selected render colour to be agreed with the officers. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions? Yes, it's Catherine Roberts. I just want to establish your last point that you made. The applicant is prepared to consider the possible change in render colour. Yes, it was never asked of us to submit a colour, and I think that is significant. And I think if members are minded to allow this to go through this evening, we'd be happy to accept a condition that the colour is selected with the agreement of the officers. Okay, thank you. Yes, that's going to be my point as well. Any further questions? No, thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, so to the officers, all legal, it seems to be more about the colour of the render rather than anything else. So what are we able to say about that? That there should be a to agreement or can it be conditioned or if we were inclined to agree with a change of colour, how would we address that? I think kind of the main issue of this application is that it's a consideration from heritage officers that actually external wall installation or kind of any render of any form would not be suitable at the site. So that's kind of what they're resisting. It's not specifically just the colour. Obviously, the white render is kind of contrary to the neighbouring listed property. However, it is just the addition of render in general, but it's going to kind of obscure them existing architectural details. And actually, it kind of takes away the kind of, although it's not a designated heritage asset, it is a positive building. And that has been recognised kind of through the LPA townscape appraisal. So although it's not a designated heritage asset, it is kind of recognised as a positive building and that's kind of recognising the character appraisal in the kind of LPA townscape map and also recent kind of appeal decisions as well, the planning inspector has kind of upheld this. So it is recognised as making a positive contribution to the conservation area in its current form. And it's considered that any kind of form of render would change this kind of detriment, kind of contrary to polypsy DMA6. Just to clarify one thing that is true, the building itself is not locally listed or statutory listed. But because it's a technical clarification, the conservation area within which it sits, that is a designated heritage asset. And so all development has to either preserve or enhance the character and appearance. And in the opinion of the heritage officer, the addition of render cumulatively to the other amendments does not do that. And that's why it's recommended for refusal. So it's not necessarily just about the building itself, whether or not it is intrinsic or otherwise. Thank you. So if we go to the vote on this, the officers are recommending refusal. All those in favour of refusal? Two. Those against refusal? Two. One not voting. So it's the chair's decision and as chair I support the officers recommendation to refuse. So this application is refused and we move on to the next one. No, I think. Are you going to present the next two together? They're sort of linked. So if we can present the two together and then we'll vote on them separately. Good evening committee and members of the public. This is the application at 79 Oakley Park North and Fairfield Oakley Park North. There are two applications for the removal of three trees. The reason the applications before the committee tonight is there's a financial implication in the decision. Sorry, I think people in the public gallery are indicating that I can't hear you. Do you mind moving your... Is that better? Yeah. So there's a financial implication in the decision for the removal of the trees. There's a risk of compensation as a result of refusal and nine objections have been received in relation to the application. So the application is for the removal of one oak tree and one false acacia tree standing in the gardens of Fairfield and one false acacia tree located in the front garden of 79 Oakley Park North. This is the site location plan and you can see this is the location of the oak tree and these are the locations of the two TPO false acacia trees, one in the garden of 79 and one in the garden of Fairfield. This is the aerial image. This is the oak tree here and the two false acacia trees are here. This is the view from Oakley Park North and you can see this is the false acacia tree standing within Fairfield and subject to this application TPP 072023. This is trees in a poor quality. I think at some point in the past the crown failed and it's starting to regrow with new branches here and it's completely covered in ivy so it's quite difficult to determine its true condition but its contribution is fairly minimal. This is the second application TPP 072123 which is the tree located in the front garden of 79 Oakley Park North and the tree has been managed and maintained and has some contribution but not exceptional. And the oak tree has stood behind Fairfield here and that's subject to the application TPP 702023. This is a site photograph, a slightly different view but it shows the contribution of the oak tree to the street scene of Oakley Park North and you can see the tree which is growing in the front garden of 79. This is the view from behind Fairfield and this is the oak tree in its entirety. It's a very large mature oak tree. The oak is implicated in causing damage to the rear part of the block of flats and you can see the typical cracking of the brick work going diagonally down through the building and it's repeated on the rear side flank as well so there's a sort of diagonal going down that way too. These are internal images of the damage provided by the applicant. There's damage around the windows, around the doorways and up into the ceilings. And there's also damage reported on the balcony on the first floor. This is the internal damage reported at the front of the building where the false acacia trees are alleged to have been causing movement and there's crack damage typically around the windows here and here and on external brick work there's typical diagonal cracking. The applicants in recent months submitted an application for installation of a root barrier and the root barrier is located here shown by the white line. It's quite an extensive 50 metres of root barrier which would exclude tree roots growing towards the affected parts of the property at the front and rear. So that has been approved and the cost of that is estimated at around £91,000. Engineers have reviewed the technical data provided by the applicants and have found that the tree roots have caused some desiccation. The oak tree roots at the rear of the property are implicated in causing damage. Fairfield was built in 1972 before the guidelines for foundations and subsidence were issued so they were built probably to standard at the time. The damage there in the rear is recorded at category 3 which is fairly large cracks and probably at the front is category 2. The applicant has assessed for heave and found that the risk of heave is acceptable. So on balance the oak tree is implicated in causing subsidence to the rear and the acacia trees are implicated in causing damage to the front and that's both trees, one in Fairfield and one in the front garden of 79. The key considerations are for this is the oak tree is a very large high amenity tree, it's a very old tree, it's a large substantial size. The false acacia tree growing within Fairfield is in poor condition and will provide little long term visceral amenity. The false acacia tree growing within 79 has moderate value and provides some amenity to the street. All three trees are implicated in causing damage to Fairfield both at the front and rear. The agents have submitted an application for a root barrier and that was approved. The cost of that root barrier is quoted at 91,000. However the solicitors for the applicants submitted a claim for damages on the 18th of October and the outstanding claim for damages is for 80,000 pounds should the application be refused they would seek compensation to that level. So the recommendation we have, as usual, we haven't provided a direct recommendation for the trees. This is for the members to determine whether the risk of loss and loss of amenity against the information provided is acceptable. But there are two decisions to make, one for the trees growing in Fairfield, which is TPP 072023 for the removal of the oak tree and false acacia tree. The decision could be split between the oak and the false acacia tree if members were minded to do so. And then the recommendation for the false acacia tree growing at 79 Oakley Park North can be determined as normal. Okay, thank you. Thank you have calculation item and down as a speaker, but I don't see him here so I don't think he's going to speak. So we have the agent Jackie company. No, there are no speakers on this. Can we just have some discussion or confirmation about this claim for 80,000 pound for compensation. We're in similar situations where we we've refused consent for trees that such claims have been put in so could we have some information about what this is why it isn't. Because there's been some delay in determining the application. The solicitors saw that because the application hadn't been decided with any angry period. It was deemed refusal. And on that basis they've submitted a claim that the council's, but the application is deemed a refusal. We can have some legal advice on likelihood of this on the implications for the council. So, we could have some legal advice on the implications for the council of this. The compensation if we're likely to pay if the council is likely to be liable for 80,000 pound refuses. So the question is what the implications are if a claim, such as this was to be successful. And obviously that would depend on the merits of the case. And if it was a successful claim, obviously the council would have to pay compensation. Thank you. The council decided to grant the removal of those trees, but that substantially reduce the amount of root barrier required, and therefore substantially reduce the amount of liability, we may possibly have. That will be a fair assumption, I'll go back up to a plan. So, there's the location of the root barrier. The acacia trees are here, so they may be able to foreshorten the root barrier, just to sort of to isolate the house and the tree together. So it will be significantly smaller amount of works, what that value is I couldn't say, but it will be less. Any comments or questions? Yes, Councillor Carrick. I propose that we do split the oak tree and the full acacia. How do we, how do we propose to vote on this? Do we have to propose a different thing without just approving? Okay, Councillor Carrick, would you like to propose a motion that we refuse permission for the oak tree but agree for the full acacia in the first? So, Councillor Carrick is proposing a motion to split the decision, so if somebody seconds that. I will second it. And then if you vote on that, if you vote against that recommendation, then it would default back to the original recommendation, which you can also vote either in favour of or against. Yeah, we need we need to just check legally what we're doing here so we can take five minutes or so to get confirmation of the legality of this. I think we have clarification on the procedure for this. Councillor Carrick has proposed that we split the decision on item 11 TPP0721-23. Sorry, it's TPP0720-23. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. 072023. We split the decision, that's the one that concerns two trees, the oak tree and the full acacia. So you're proposing that we refuse permission for removal of the full acacia, but refuse permission for removal of the oak tree, is that correct? That's correct. And I second that proposal. All those in favour of that proposal? That's all. So we now need to vote on the other application 0721, which is for the one full acacia in the garden of 79. So there's no recommendation for this. So we're voting either for removal of the tree or for retaining the tree. So those in favour of removal of the tree? Four. Those in favour of retaining the tree? One. So we have voted to remove that tree or to allow that tree to be removed. So I think that's everything on tonight's agenda.