Subscribe to updates

You'll receive weekly summaries about Barnet Council every week.

If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.

Planning Committee - Wednesday 20th November, 2024 7.00 pm

November 20, 2024 View on council website  Watch video of meeting  Watch video of meeting  Watch video of meeting or read trancript
AI Generated

Summary

The meeting considered four planning applications. The committee voted to grant planning permission for all of the applications with the exception of 112D Park Road, Barnet, which was deferred to allow for additional objections and conditions to be made.

310 Mays Lane, Barnet

This application concerned the construction of extensions at a community centre. The application was approved subject to conditions despite 96 objections from the public.

The plans involve raising the eaves height of the building to provide a second floor, as well as single-storey extensions to the front and side. The extensions will provide separate spaces for men and women, as is required for cultural reasons.

The key issues raised about the application were the impact on the green belt, traffic, parking and noise.

The site is in the Metropolitan Green Belt1 and as a result is subject to more stringent planning controls. The applicant argued that the proposal did not involve a change of use and that:

The proposed works have been developed in close consultation with your officers through the pre-application process and are highly sensitive to the surrounding context, with the overall height of the building retained as existing. The proposals do not involve a change of use and due to their nature and siting the extensions would not impact neighbouring residents' daylight, sunlight, privacy or outlook.

The planning officer agreed and in the committee report recommended approval, stating:

The Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016) sets as a guiding principle the volume of the original dwelling house should not be increased by more than 25% by external measurements... The enlarged volume is below the recommended volume of 25%. Therefore, the development is regarded as appropriate development and is not considered to have a spatial or visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Concerns were raised about the noise created by the community centre. It was noted that there are currently no planning restrictions on the hours of use or number of visitors. However, the applicant agreed to a number of conditions relating to soundproofing, maximum capacity and hours of operation.

Local residents also expressed concern about the traffic and parking created by the community centre. The planning officer stated that:

The highways officers have been consulted and they've raised no objections to, because they have existing 160 car parking spaces and they're going to be using those.

One resident disputed this, claiming that:

already people [are] parking on the side of the road

The planning officer responded that:

just because there are cars parking on the pavement, doesn't necessarily mean that they would be visiting the site.

It was noted that an activity management plan is in place which would be shared with the highways officers.

97-101 The Broadway, Mill Hill

This application was for a change of use from a restaurant (Use Class E2) to a mixed restaurant and hot food takeaway (Sui Generis3). The application was approved despite 155 objections from the public. The applicant's agent, Joe Oakden, described the proposed use as follows:

The centre will have various events that go on during the week, so weekly events, and they're typically up to a maximum of 250 people which is restricted by the condition in the consent. There is an exception where on Ramadan there will be up to 350 people and then an annual festival, a ten day festival named Muharram and that will be a maximum of 800 people.

The agent confirmed that this number referred to the maximum number of people at the site at any one time.

The key issues raised about the application were the distance to a nearby school and the impact on traffic and parking.

Local residents expressed concern that the proposal would contravene London Plan policy E9, which states that:

Development proposals containing A5 hot food takeaway uses should not be permitted where these are within 400 metres walking distance from the entrances and exits of an existing or proposed primary or secondary school.

St Martin's School is located 321 metres from the site. The planning officer responded that:

officers do, you know, acknowledge it's not in strict accordance with the London Plan, but do take into account the age range being up to eleven, so really primary age school being an independent school. So, you know, there's probably more likely going to be parents taking their children to the school, so that there is a much lower risk of the children going there after school than, for example, a high school, which you'd obviously have, you know, people walking independently there, taking public transport.

The committee ultimately decided that the benefits of the location in a town centre outweighed the concerns about its proximity to the school.

Councillor Eva Greenspan expressed concern about the traffic impact of deliveries to the site, asking:

Now, what accommodation is there for the unloading, generally the unloading of the product in a site so close to the roundabout?

The planning officer responded that:

currently the restaurant has permits to use the commercial restricted bays, so this isn't anything which McDonald's would need to apply for, but they currently have permits at certain times as part of the existing use from Prezzo to use the bays at particular times. We would then want to put a condition to restrict it so it's off peak hours, so that it doesn't conflict with any peak hours.

Residents also raised concerns about the potential for couriers and delivery drivers to park illegally. One resident claimed that the restaurant would:

have drivers using the kind of apps, the deliveries and Uber Eats and so on and so forth... and they will then spill into the roads

The planning officer responded that:

there are already takeaways there which do use Uber drivers. There's evidence of other cycles being parked quite legally within that stretch of the Mill Hill Broadway, so this isn't a completely new use.

The committee voted to approve the application despite these concerns.

11 Hill Crescent, London

This application concerned extensions at a house. The application was approved subject to conditions despite objections from the occupants of the neighbouring house.

The plans included a two-storey side extension and a rear extension which is single-storey for part of its length and two-storey for the rest.

The key issue raised was the impact of the extension on the neighbouring property.

A representative of the neighbours described the plans as:

an identical plan [which] was rejected [for the previous owners]

They argued that:

To pass this application would contradict Barnet council's first ruling

The applicant's agent, Joe Henry, responded that:

It is comforting, though, that the Councillor's objection, as stated in the committee report, does not relate to the impact the proposal has on the character and appearance of the property and locality. Therefore, I will concentrate my points on the impact the proposal has on the neighbouring amenity of number 13 Hill Crescent.

The agent went on to state that the two-storey section of the side extension would not have an impact on the neighbours because:

your officer's report confirms three [of the four windows on the side elevation of the neighbour's property] are obscure-glazed and none serve house rooms.

The planning officer agreed with the applicant's assessment of the impact on the neighbour, stating that:

the extension to the first floor outrigger at the back doesn't come as far back as the first floor of number 13 ... and there is a gap of two metres maintained between first floors which again does comply with policy

The planning officer also confirmed that a previous application at the same site had been rejected because it involved:

a much larger six meter extension at the back ... so clearly that has a very greater impact on number 9 than a small extension of two metres on this original part of the house

Councillor Caroline Stock, the local councillor, stated that she:

think[s] it should be rejected... because of the actual overbearing appearance for the house No. 13

She went on to say that she felt that the mass of the extension would:

give a real sense of enclosure for them in the garden

The committee voted to approve the application.

112D Park Road, Barnet

This application was for the demolition of a detached bungalow and its replacement with two detached houses. The application was deferred to the next meeting to allow for additional objections and conditions to be made.

The key issue raised about the application was the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The planning officer stated that:

the character is large and has some fairly comfortable plots, and that's the main issue as members will read from the report and as we'll get to in a minute ... the proposed units are too small, they're not cramped on the site, they're out of scale, out of keep and out of character with the surrounding area ... whilst everything else about the proposed dwelling isn't okay, many spaces okay, no issue with regards to parking, etcetera, it's just considered that they're too cramped and out of character, and unfortunately the additional unit on there does not in our opinion outweigh that very real problem and concern.

The applicant, Mr Agarwal, responded that:

Barnet is facing a desperate shortage of family homes. This impacts the whole community with families essentially unable to afford decent sized housing, either to rent or to buy ... The application I've made does provide two compliant, decent family homes, and the existing house and the surrounding structures that exist, the current lawful position, are simply an eyesore, and we should look at this as an opportunity to develop from that.

Councillor Simon Radford, who called the application in, submitted a statement arguing that:

sticking with the idea of consistent plots should outweigh the benefits of extra housing, especially as the narrowness of the plots hardly seems extreme. We need more family homes in Barnet, there are also many studios and one bedroom units, and we should not take lightly turning down very reasonable designs which can increase their number.

The committee was minded to approve the application and voted to defer it to the next meeting to allow for additional objections and conditions to be made.

  1. The Metropolitan Green Belt is a policy for controlling urban growth in London and the surrounding counties. It was introduced in 1938 with the intention of preventing urban sprawl and protecting the countryside from development. It is made up of land that is designated as being of particular importance for its landscape, recreational, historical or agricultural value.  ↩

  2. Planning permission is usually required for a change of use, and different types of use are grouped together into use classes. Use Class E covers shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, offices, research and development of products and processes, gyms, health centres and creches. ↩

  3. Some uses of buildings and land do not fall within any of the Use Classes. These are known as Sui Generis uses. Examples of Sui Generis uses include theatres, petrol filling stations, amusement arcades, nightclubs, launderettes and scrap yards. ↩

Attendees

Documents