Transcript

Hi, good evening everybody. Thank you for attending this meeting. I'm Claire Farrier, councillor and the chair of this planning committee. I'm going to ask members of the planning committee to introduce themselves first, followed by the planning officers, the legal officer and the governance officer. So if you can start with councillor Roberts. Good evening, I'm councillor Tim Roberts from Underhill Ward. Councillor Richard Barnes, Barnet Vale. Councillor Connick, Collindale South Ward. Councillor Joshua Conway, Hendon Ward. Mansour Cohen, Planning Officer. Lesley Feldman, Planning Manager. Dave Prince, Deputy Planning Manager. Farrier Hussain, Governance Officer. We ask that you will remain seated throughout the meeting unless you're called to table to address the committee. Please note that these meetings are recorded and their broadcast is allowed for in law or by the council. So by attending, either in person or online, you may be picked up on recordings. Council recordings are covered by our privacy notice which can be found on our website, barnet.gov.uk. So when we come to the applications, for each application a planning officer will present it. Each speaker will then have three minutes to address the committee and you'll be given a warning when you have a minute left. And we then have the opportunity to ask you questions and to discuss and to decide on the application. We ask when you sit down to turn the microphone on and then off when you finish speaking because only one microphone works at a time, usually. Can we please note that we are currently in a pre-election period because there's going to be a by-election in Burnet Oak Ward on the 13th of February. And during this time, ordinary council business can continue, but members are reminded not to refer to candidates or parties in relation to the upcoming election. So thank you for your support in ensuring these principles are respected at all times. Now, I'd also like to take this opportunity to speak about the late Councillor Eva Greenspan. She was a member of this committee and chair of this and other planning committees for many years. I think she'd been a councillor for 30 years. It's about, haven't she? Or more than 30, yeah. And she unfortunately passed away last week, which is why we come to apologies. There's one vacant seat here at the moment. So I've also been on planning committees for most of my time as a councillor and I've worked quite closely with Eva. I appreciated her support to me now as chair and previously as a member of the committee. And I know she was always supportive as she could be to everybody taking part in these. She had, as I say, great experience and expertise, she would say, of planning law, which she used very often during the meetings. It's hard to imagine and now experience planning committee meetings without Eva. And I'm sure we all send our condolences to her family. We're not going to have a minute silence this evening because there will be further tributes and a full minute silence at the full council meeting next Tuesday on the 28th of January. But I don't know if any other members would like to say a few words at the moment. Otherwise we'll move on to the agenda. The minutes to the last meeting, I'm sure everybody has seen. Are we happy with the minutes? Absence of members, as I say, there is one vacancy for that post at the moment. So we have one short on the committee. Do any members have any interest to declare? Councillor Conway. Agenda nine, item nine, lands adjacent to Hendon Hall Court. I've called it into committee but have in no way made any sort of prior decision in my mind. And therefore I'm fully open to hearing both what the officers, applicant and objector have to say. There's been no dispensations granted by the monitoring officer. An addendum was published earlier this afternoon. I think everybody has seen that. There are two items on the agenda that have been deferred to the next meeting. One is item six, 94 Kingsley Way in Garden Suburb has been deferred to the next meeting. And the last two items on the agenda, items 11 and 12 from the High Road, N2 East Finchley. So I hope that people have prior notice and nobody has attended for those items. If they are, then those are not being heard this evening. And we move on to the first item that is on the agenda and being heard. 112 D Park Road, East Barnet. Yes, thank you, Chair. Excuse me. Description as per the report. Just run through the slides quickly, if I may. But members will find this fairly familiar. It was reported to the last meeting. About when following discussions, members resolved that the application be deferred back to this meeting of the committee to enable the matter to be fully considered. Just run through the slides quickly, if I may. We've got a location plan aerial view. So there we have the application site. Detached bungalow. As we saw on site time before last, quite a few outbuildings which we'll see in a minute around the front and side of the building on the corner of Park Road and Mount Road there. Site photos. That's the rear. All half-surface as we saw. And then that's a photo which shows quite nicely what's there. So that's the main dwelling there, bungalow. Various covered areas at the front and at the side. And then views westward and eastward. So there's the application site. And that's down Mount Road there. So looking at the floor plans. On the left hand side it's a single part two storey, three bed dwelling. And that's two storey, four bed dwelling on the inside there. You can see the cutout on the end unit which means it's a little bit smaller. Well actually elevations are virtually identical. Picking up on other building, I think a neighbouring property. To try and reflect the overall visual character of the area. Let's go onto a block plan. There we see it. So virtually the same footprints. Cut the car parking spaces for each dwelling. That one access from Mount Road just there. And from the front there. So as your members will see from the report. We've got no objection in principle to the buildings. The main concern is that the plots are materially substantially narrower than the neighbouring properties. In our opinion they're too narrow and look cramped compared to the more spacious developments that are typical of the area. It's not considered that the proposal would benefit. The benefit of the additional dwelling would overcome the harm cause to the character and appearance of the area. Hence the recommendation for refusal. As members will have seen from the report however. The report has two parts. The second part of which recommends conditions informatives which should be secured. Should committee resolve to overturn members' recommendation. And seek to approve the application. I have nothing else to add chair approvers recommended. Sorry. Refuse the recommended. Thank you. Thank you. We have a speaker on this. Elias Neoclius. Is Mr Neoclius here? I'll take that as a no. Is the applicant or agent here Sam Bennett? Looks like there are no speakers on this. So we'll go to any further discussion or questions from members. We did discuss this at our last meeting. It's been deferred because we didn't agree with the officer's recommendation at the last meeting. That's why it's being brought again tonight. So any further questions? Otherwise we will go straight to the vote. The officers are again recommending refusal. All those in favour of refusal? That's none. Mm. So we need to have a proposal to approve. Okay. Um, but for six people is the the report. There. What is opportunity for public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public birotes onông tylo ICP enfim. That's more than, in preview for public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public, to approve and and to get together with together with the reasons for approval I think I think we felt that the properties would be a benefit to East Barnett and the housing they provided would be of sufficient quality and that the general area wasn't homogeneous and that they wouldn't be too much out of place so essentially we weren't convinced by the officers description of them being out of keeping but you're proposing this and council Roberts seconding is that is that okay okay so with those reasons we've got the conditions the officers have come up with it if we were going to approve this which I'm sure you've all looked at all those in favor of approval that's all thank you very much and move on to the next item 10 Wentworth Avenue thank you chair good evening members this item relates to 10 Wentworth Avenue and it's for the conversion of the existing property into four flats which includes a part single part two storey side and rear extension new front porch roof extension including rear dormer window roof lights and associated amenity space refuse the cycle storage and three off-street parking spaces so this is the site location plan outlined in red is the property a two-story detached single-family dwelling house located on the corner plot of Wentworth Avenue and Wentworth Park and an aerial image the area being predominantly residential in character some more close-up aerial images there's the property here and some site photos there's the detached dwelling there a side view looking down Wentworth Park and in this image here you can make out a single-story rear extension that has been previously approved and built out so it's present in situ just some context in terms of previous approvals so there there there is already a lapse approval for the conversion of the property into three flats that was followed by a replication of that approval in essence forming a renewal of the previous approval and that's currently extant into three flats followed by the most recent approval which was overturned at committee for refusal and allowed an appeal and that allowed the property to be converted into four flats so principally the same as what's being proposed now albeit through different enlargements and will be detailed a little bit later on the existing against the proposed block plans so that's the eight-meter single-story rear extension I mentioned that's been built out the proposal does involve a single-story rear element which is that maximum depth of eight meters comparable to what's already been built out I mean as you can see the rear areas have divided into garden space and the three number off-street parking spaces so these are the existing plans three bedroom dwelling existing elevations and the proposed ground and first floor plans as I mentioned the the enlargements here the upper floor enlargements replicate what's been previously approved and don't differ in any way so it's really the single-story element that differs the loft floor plan and the roof plan all of the extensions well the sides the side extension and the first floor extension comply with residential design guidance the eight-meter rear extension although although is larger than what's normally considered acceptable having regard to what's already been built out the relationship would not differ materially and the proposed elevations so as you can see the extensions here are subordinate set back at first floor here the first floor size extension is set down from the ridge and you can see the stepped rear element of the ground floor projection here the first floor and roof dormer replicate what's been previously approved and is set away at least two meters away from the neighboring boundary so as to minimize the impact and lastly just a comparison of what's the most recent approval against what's being proposed the principal differences is the proposal no longer proposes the basement level and that's a welcomed aspect as it reduces the built form albeit the single-story rear is slightly larger and as you can see from the elevations they pretty much replicate one another with the only real difference being the ground floor element so in terms of key considerations the principle of flats is already established by virtue of the two previous extent approvals the enlargements largely reflect those previous approvals all units meet the minimum space standards and would re-provide a three-bedroom family unit it's not considered that there's any adverse impact to neighboring occupiers and parking provision would comply with policies and highway officers consider it acceptable therefore the application is recommended for approvals subject to conditions thank you thank you thank you uh we have two speakers uh nick williams and vananda van meyer if you i don't know you can come forward on the order i don't know which order you want to speak in thank you mr williams if you were to turn the microphone on there's a face with a speech sign coming out of it if you press that no we'll help you with it thank you very much good evening thank you for this opportunity if you can introduce yourself say what your interest is in this and you'll have three minutes to speak and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left thank you very much thank you for this opportunity my name is nick williams i live at 39 wendworth park which is literally opposite this development um this is i think the ninth time that this has been brought to committee so i'm i'm getting you i'm getting fed up with it as much as we are we've already had kind of run-ins about the trees that were cut down and there was lies told about that but the real kind of upset that we have is um about over development in in this lovely little area i don't know if you're aware but um 43 went with having sorry went with park was uh recently converted into four flats but the development hasn't is trying to get retrospective um planning permission from you so i think this is what's trying to happen here is you'll give permission for something they'll over develop and then they'll retrospectively ask for permission that seems to be what happened next door to us already and this may be what happens here so we're very cautious about it but to give you a bigger context um why we're objecting so strongly within the last couple of years within 50 to 100 yards of where we live there's already been an incredible amount of development as you probably know the police station on ballards lane has become park view a wonderful family house next door to where we live at 43 went with park has been turned into four four flats the family house at number 41 went with avenue right opposite 10 went with avenue has been turned into two flats and there is an ongoing attempt to get another floor built on harknall court on ballards lane as well as approval for another floor on a mole court in grenetian road and as you probably know there's ongoing attempt to redevelop the roadrunner garage on grenetian road now all of that is in within 50 to 100 yards of where we live so if you can put ourselves yourselves in our shoes of how much development we've had to undergo and how much disruption we've had to experience over the last two or three years um so it's been pretty relentless so we're please asking you have one minute remaining thank you very much you know the borough says it does want affordable housing for families and this development does not meet that need for affordable family housing four flats on this small family property we think is an over development and has already been refused to us it seems purely about profit and creating multiple occupancy of tiny dwellings with tiny astroturf gardens the consequence for us living next to this will be yet more green space paved over more fake grass more cars more noise more risk of local floods with heavy rains we think three three flats is enough you have believe that too the developer can make a profit on that so we would ask really you as councillors to have a duty of care towards us that live around this you know please protect us residents and stop over development and the creation of what we consider to be inappropriate dwellings so that we can maintain some beauty and peacefulness around this lovely area of Finchley that's time thank you thank you so we please ask that you reject this application thank you thank you if you could stay there for a minute so that we may have questions first of all I would like to say as you are aware the committee did turn this application down before it then went to appeal and was approved on appeal so it has got approval at the moment for conversion into four flats so this is an amendment to that so all we are really able to do today is to look at what those amendments may mean and whether we can approve or not of those amendments much as we I can't speak for whether we would or would not on this occasion turn down an application for four flats but whether we would or not what we are looking at is the application for the changes to the previous application so do you think this is an improvement or a worse than the previous application no it looks horrible I mean it takes away the basement leaving over everything like next door to where we are at 43 they've taken all the greenery out and they're going to do the same thing here so when it rains we're going to get flooded you know but that's in the approved one at the moment is there any difference between what's been asked for now and the approved one I don't know what to say really we just think it's an over development we would ask that you actually you know you're saying you're approved four flats we're asking you not to approve four flats okay thank you any further questions? no thank you very much and then we have the Benanda van Meijer I think I think you're speaking on behalf of another objector Helen B. Simmons is that right? that's right hi I'm so again if you could introduce yourself and then you'll have three minutes to speak and we'll give you a warning when you have one minute left hello hi I'm Vandana Meijer and I live in Wentworth Avenue I'd just like to say that there have been as you know previously nine applications for this site most recently one I believe previous to this amendment was refused as over intensification detrimental to the character of the area previously and the amended plans you know again I believe it's over development as my neighbour Nick was saying you know we've had a lot of very large developments in the space of a hundred yards from our home and again making this even bigger than what was initially proposed I believe is over development in what is a small family community and has been for years I've been living in that area for 38-40 years and there are families and it's fine to have flats it's fine but to over develop when I saw the plans just now it's huge it doesn't look like any other house on that road and I personally wouldn't like to live next door if it was me I would move but you know yeah but at the moment it seems like that there was supposed to be an area for three off-street parking spaces it doesn't show on the it didn't show on the plans I looked at on the ground floor but it's showing there but also they've already built a utility area at the back of the garden which I don't know what that's for is that for utilities so that the extra flat at the top can have utilities in the garden I'm not sure what that's for there doesn't seem to be enough rubbish in recycling spaces it's all paved over flooding is a huge problem in the world you have one minute remaining yeah flooding is a huge problem in the world you know we're responsible for the environment and I don't think it's going to help because everyone is just paving over in fact I have one of the few gardens left in the area yeah I so I believe you know as I as my neighbor Nick was saying behind my house I've had Marwood Court in Granizona Road it's being another floor put on there I've had 43 Wentworth Avenue backing on to my house had to deal with all the noise and extra there then I've got the road run again so behind my house I've had two possibly three developments and now this one again on the corner causing parking disruption in Wentworth Avenue as well so that's time thank you thank you wait and see if we have any questions Councillor Barnes not so much a question but maybe an observation I think the plans show that the rear building is going to be removed so I don't know if that would be any comfort to you at all and as we've already said we have previously sort of agreed with some of your arguments and that this committee has rejected a four bedroom but we are somewhat hampered by the fact that there's now been approval of a four flat on that side so we are limited in terms of what we can do now I'm afraid yeah I am concerned about the footprint you know when you look at the side view of that it's huge it's coming right out and it's not in keeping with the local character of the area and I understand housing is an issue we all understand that but yeah we did visit the site today and we did we didn't feel the footprint was actually that excessive it was reasonably similar to the one just across the road which had also been feeling it extended sideways and maybe even wasn't going to be quite as large as that so you know slightly different interpretations maybe any further questions thank you questions for the officers oh sorry sorry I'm forgetting the agent Mr. Grey, Joel Grey keep on doing that again thank you if you can introduce yourself you have three minutes to speak you'll be given a warning hi my name is Joel Grey I'm the agent representing my clients on this application are you ready for me to start? perfect good evening members of the planning committee thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of the application for the conversion of 10 Wentworth Avenue into four self-contained flats my clients have been committed to working collaboratively with the planning department create a viable and well designed development that delivers much needed new homes fully aligned with the council's housing policy despite their efforts they have faced ongoing resistance not from the planning officers who have consistently supported the proposal but from some neighbours who object not on planning principles but on the grounds of personal preference a reluctance to see change in the area this site has the history of continuous applications with previous refusals overturned at appeal the planning inspectorate the planning inspectorate has repeatedly recognised that the proposal meets the required standards and are in keeping with the planning policy for example during the appeal application 18 forward slash 57654 the inspector concluded the proposal development will not harm the character of the area or conflict with policy's objectives for housing growth similarly application 22 forward slash 2849 forward slash 4 was rejected a committee on the grounds that would result in an over-intensification and an inappropriate mix of units yet again the planning inspector overturned this reaffirming that their development aligns with local London plan policies today I urge you to consider this application in context of those decisions the current proposal has been thoughtfully designed to address all concerns raised previously it provides a mix of housing types including smaller units that align with London plan policy H10 which encourages diverse housing provisions to meet the needs of a broad range of residents this development would make a meaningful contribution to local housing supply and sustainable location close to transport links and amenities the objections raised against the application are not grounded planning law policy for example the suggestion that a studio flat is out of character for the area is not only subjective but also fails to consider the changing needs of communities smaller units critical addressing housing shortages especially for single professionals young people and those seeking affordable options on parking the highways safety that proposal includes three off-street parking spaces adequate turning space and provision for cycle storage these arrangements means all relevant standards have been supported professional assessments the inspectorate has previously dismissed concerns about parking layouts on this site stating that they do not pose harm to pedestrians or highway safety the planning department has worked constructively with my clients to refine these proposals into the balance of their needs of community respects local character and adheres to all relevant policies it is deeply frustrating that my clients have been hindered by persistent objections based on resistance to change rather than legitimate planning concerns members of committee are respectfully requesting you give due way to professional recommendations of your officers and the findings under the planning inspectorate this proposal represents opportunity to live a high quality homes in a manner that is sensitive to its surroundings and its compliance thank you and again you know we as I said we are well aware that there is an extent permission already on this so I wonder if you could explain what the differences are and why you have made those changes Fundamentally the two biggest changes are really the removal of the basement of the previous application again as the objectives mentioned this benefits not only the development but the local area in two ways which they have mentioned flooding obviously is a concern of theirs by removing a basement aspect obviously if there ever was any concerns of flooding a basement would only maybe enhance that removal of a basement then allows the soaking of water to drain through the natural soil system obviously with the basement mass concrete being poured into the basement that obviously is an improved change the second change is mainly as the planning officer previously said the ground floor re-extension now as again the objections mentioned previously there has been quite a few applications summited previously one of those applications was prior notification for an eight metre re-extension that was constructed once that had been constructed it seemed established and it seemed silly to remove it from the end proposal as it was already there established so by incorporating that into the design meant we could get rid of the basement the light wells which we know it can be a concern of neighbours the impact to be able to have a better drainage system the fact that the eight metre had been established and was there allowed us to remove it improve the development this is a significant improvement to the previous proposal more cost effective as well which would allow us the client to end up lowering the cost of the flat as well to any potential buyers doesn't need to pass on that cost of the basement so in many ways these changes although not agreeable to the neighbours actually significantly benefits the development significantly benefits the area and significantly benefits the character of the street scene Councillor Kallick Thank you I'm a little bit perplexed if these improvements are so beneficial and the sort of cost improvements involved as well why were they not included in the previous plan? twofold firstly as with well probably threefold with any development it's organic it grows you look what's been approved you want to see how you can approve it you know I don't think any development should be static you should always be looking ways for improvements the secondly previously to to the previous application the 8m wasn't there so we couldn't incorporate it into the development the fact that it is there now means we can so those are the two significant reasons why this change was was was done and I think I'm going to stick to those two I think those I'll really explain why again going back to a natural organic improvement of any development I think is key and critical to to enhance the character the area the street scene you know I don't believe anybody should rest on their laurels I should rest on any one development you should always be looking for improvements any more questions Councillor Roberts thank you chair the building at the rear of the site yes what's the plan for that oh that's being removed it's an old garage that's originally there existing but that I believe the intention is to remove it to provide additional parking space so what's the intention to use the land for for now if that removal takes place before the development takes place or after once after the development on the plans it shows there'll be three parking spaces at the rear of the property currently existing there is a garage there it is in existence what it is currently used for I believe properly stored I doubt it's been used to its proper potential so there'll be no enclosed roots building at the back there no okay thank you any further questions? no thank you very much any questions or clarification from the officers? or comments? I would just like to say that I think along with several other members and some members who were on previous committees this does seem to be rather large for the area and I do appreciate people who've been living there in family houses suddenly seeing themselves being surrounded by flats and changing the character of the area however as we said before we are now considering that this has got an extent permission for four flats and to consider the change that this makes to that permission and on the face of it and as the agent has been explaining in a lot of ways it does seem to improve it there will not be a basement the space of the cars so I can see no reason on this occasion that we can refuse it but it's open to other members to say anything other comments? okay so we're going to the vote this application is recommended for approval all those in favour of approval that's all thank you very much and we move on to the next item land adjacent to Hendon Hall Court in Hendon thank you chair this application is for land adjacent to Hendon Hall Court Parson Street in Hendon and the proposal is the erection of three two storey detached dwellings with basement level and rooms in the roof space with associated refuse recycling storage and parking so this is the site here it's at the junction of the A1 and Parson Street leading up into Hendon this is Hendon Hall Hendon Hall Court here this access way around here provides access and is parked residence parking area along there this is the area of the site which is the current application there's a belt of trees here and in fact there's an area TPO historic area TPO which covered these group of trees here and also some trees that were originally up on the side of the development here along Parson Street one of the trees a Monterey Cypress is still on site and is subject to a TPO other trees along here are not part of the preservation order and that's the view from the other angle so looking down this is the garden area for the existing residents of the flats and the parking area and access road so this is the application site here and Garrick Drive is the nearest development along this side here the proposal is to effectively put three houses two of them will be in this area and the third house will be slightly further over this side sort of obliquely in front of Hendon Hall Court this is some site photographs the area of the site has been fenced off there's an old dilapidated building in this part of the site this here you can see the road the A1 and some more photographs that's the old building on site this is a view looking from the site back towards the existing blocks of flats and that's the fence which separates the development site from Hendon Hall Court and some more views looking back towards the Hendon Hall Court development existing and proposed site plan so currently it's just an open area was previously an open area now it's been fenced off with a fence around it the proposal is to provide three detached houses two in this part of the site one further over here so here you can see the relationship particularly of this one here to Hendon Hall Court each of the houses will have two car parking spaces and the access will be from Garrick Drive along here which is currently a cul-de-sac small cul-de-sac so that would be opened up and the vehicle access would be from that area here the existing tree and shrub line would be retained and this is the protected tree the Monterey Cypress the proposed floor plans basement area showing cinema room, gym, storage etc living accommodation on the ground floor bedrooms on the first floor and within the loft space one bedroom in the loft space they're all four bedroom seven person houses more than meet the minimum floor space standard and they have large gardens to serve each property these are the elevations this is the elevation that you'd see from the A1 in Great North Way and this is the rear elevation and then the proposed flank elevation whereby you can see the elevated position slight elevated position relative to the main road and this is the relationship to Hendon Hall Court and this is the view looking from Garrick Drive and the proposed sections which show the basement level and again the relationships to the flats another proposed section again this is the existing development of flats four storey building and the proposed landscaping so this is the access way two parking spaces per house and then this area here will be subdivided to provide garden areas individual garden areas for each flat sorry each house and some 3D views view here from the A1 and again a view looking the other way showing the relationship to Hendon Hall Court as members will see the application is recommended for refusal officers considered that the introduction particularly of plot one which is the one that sits in front of Hendon Hall Court obliquely introduces a form of development that's not characteristic plots the other two plots form more of a continuation of Garrick Drive so they'd be kind of more in keeping assimilately more into the street scene whereas to put an additional dwelling further away from those two and within the area in front of Hendon Hall introduces development which is considered to be uncharacteristic contrary to the pattern of development and again consider that the benefit of the one additional dwelling doesn't offset the identified harm the second reason for refusal relates to potential flood risk the area is in an area subject to high risk from surface water flooding and therefore insufficient information was submitted with the application to address this and the flood risk assessment would be required for this form of application the proposal is considered acceptable on the basis of the level of provision of housing provided and also on neighbouring amenity officers consider that the distance and the oblique views from windows from Hendon Hall Court mean that there's no significant adverse impact on the amenities of the existing residents of those flats however for the reasons of lack of flood information and the harm to the character of the area because of that one particular house and its relationship to the site the application is recommended for refusal thank you thank you we have one person who wishes to speak on this Jonathan Tessler yeah yeah is Mr. Tessler here I believe you're in favour of the application yes correct so again if you can just introduce yourself we only have three minutes to speak and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left my name is Jonathan Tessler I'm previously a leaseholder in Hendon Hall Court and I'm currently the leaseholder of number one Garrick Court Garrick Drive which is the closest current residential site to this site the site itself has been and still is for many years an eyesore it's a previously developed site that has been left to dilapidated we've been had many discussions actually with the previous owners which were the Hendon Hall Court before it was brought out by the care home and they beautifully redeveloped that site with regards to doing something for this site we've suffered in Garrick Drive with Garrick Court with vermin majority of the large rubbish that comes from Hendon Hall Court is at the back of the site there and it's currently just ends up being thrown over which has caused tremendous damage to the properties on Garrick Court with this development in site now that it's been closed off first of all it's a safer piece of land they're no longer it's no longer used at the moment by drug users vermin is better contained because the the land has started it's cleared up but there still is vermin there on site fires have stopped the site was used unfortunately by homeless people the developed part of the site that is still there is still occasionally used by homeless people who light fires to keep themselves warm but put those about four to five metres away in Garrick Court at risk constantly um having spent spoken to all the neighbours in Garrick Court there's no objection whatsoever development it does actually blend in the two and one the way they've split the properties due to the fact that Garrick Court is also built like that we've got two sections together which form flats three, four, five and six and flats one and two are stand alone a few metres apart from that so it this from the other aspect from being previously being having been a lease holder on the front of Hendon Hall Court unfortunately whilst you have one minute remaining thank you whilst being there in Hendon Court I was told initially by the previous people which is not their fault because I believe they were probably told as well all this land is all public land that belongs to Hendon Hall Court that's not the case and I was aware of it not long after I purchased did purchase the lease there and and all those in the vicinity who live there feel this would be a benefit to have more family housing in the area thank you thank you any questions Councillor thank you thank you the office has mentioned the issue of possible flooding and overrun of water is that an issue in that area as far as you're concerned well currently this is sort of downhill Hendon Court is raised I'm not sure if you're familiar with the site at all this is land at the bottom we've had no flooding the only problem we had was one of the trees large trees outside the building unfortunately a root caused the drain to collapse a number of years ago we did have sewage coming up but that's sorted Thames water diverted it other than that there's been no flooding that I've been aware of in the last I think it's 18 or 19 years no we've had no flooding on the site at all thank you any further questions no thank you very much and then we have somebody who is objecting to the scheme Mary Dweck who has sent a statement that is going to be read out the residents of Hendon Hall Court feel that three dwellings on this small plot of land is an overload and overcrowding space the look of these two these three two story dwellings are out of character and will devalue the surrounding properties and Hendon Hall Court three dwellings two stories high with basements will cause huge problems with the water table the owners of the land have already cleared the trees without an arboricultural report which is very concerning as we might get land heave causing huge structural damage to the block of flats and surrounding properties at this point I'd like to ask if they have any insurance for the damage they may cause our concern is also for the wildlife there are many bats there with the plan it will cause a huge loss of light to all the adjacent ground floor and first floor flats which is not acceptable when the new land owners purchase the land they put up a wooden fence without any planning promising or agreement from residents at Hendon Hall Court it looks awful and we feel we should have been written to about the fence from Barnet Planning this development would impact on us terribly because it's too large too many properties too high and three basements too many we do not want a flood risk here thank you we're not able to ask questions because that statement was just read out so now we have the agent Philip Taylor thank you Miss Taylor if you can turn the microphone on that's it and then introduce yourself you have three minutes to speak and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left thank you good evening members my name is Philip Taylor I'm the planning consultant with over 25 years experience in the industry I'm speaking this evening on behalf of the applicant as you've read and seen from the council provided photographs this site is previously developed land partly consisting of an old redundant swimming pool and a now dangerous single storey outbuilding which is subject to vandalism and waste dumping since the submission a security fence around the land has been erected based on supported pre-application advice the application was submitted in June 2023 we've had to wait a year and a half for this case to be heard firstly this makes a mockery of the planning system whereas whereby resident individuals who spend good money submitting applications have had to wait this long for a poorly written and considered report to be presented to you the starting position has to be the new MPPF which makes the granting of new housing a presumption in favour rather than the contrary also significant weight should now be placed on previously developed land which this is we are aware of the issues around Barnet Council's housing development and the new 2024 housing targets which stand at 4,057 units up from 3,683 we are therefore fully supportive of Barnet Council and this thoughtfully designed scheme will help to achieve these targets of course granting planning permission should not be at any cost the scheme before you has been carefully designed and well considered the gap between plots 1 and 3 has been created to enable views from the flats to remain unimpacted the units would also be approximately 3 metres below the flats due to topography its additional planting to provide further screening would be added the officer considers plot 1 to be the only concern citing its uncharacteristic form and separation distance from the nearby Hendon Court the officer's report states the scheme complies with the council's separation policies and would not result in any unacceptable overbearing impacts or the loss of outlook to neighbouring residential occupiers it also states the scheme complies with acceptable levels of outlook and privacy however the report you have one minute remaining however the report goes on to contradict itself in terms of the character of the area the scheme has been designed to be a continuation of Garrick Court next door which has a uniform terrace of housing I would encourage members to consider the existing layout of buildings and the gap between Garrick Court and the scheme the proposed scheme is characteristic of the local built form as described earlier as described earlier the gap between plots one and two is on purpose and designed to enhance the amenity of nearby neighbours the scheme does not pose a risk from surface water risk a one percent risk is highly determinable finally in conclusion I would encourage members to in your deliberation to see the wider barnet and country picture whereby we need more family housing the scheme complies with your local policies and it appears the officers view are overshadowed by the benefits this scheme would create in summary the policy and need weighting should overwhelmingly support this scheme I'm happy to take any questions thank you thank you I would like to ask first of all I believe when you ask for pre-application advice the officers you were looking at the three houses more closely together which the officers felt would probably be okay but you've come in with one house separated which they have problems with so I wondered what the reason was for separating them we carefully looked at your policies in terms of separation distance and angle and overlooking and the reason for that separation was to create a greater view of amenity and privacy from the Hendon court to our properties our proposed properties so that gap is on purpose if you look at the gap between Garrick Court where it ends and plots three to two it's very similar to the plots between one and two so in my view it does form a natural characteristic built form the other questions councillor roberts are there plans to produce some shrubbery or some border at the rear of the proposed land site which at the moment there is just a fence substantial on there which is I don't know how long the fence has been there but it possibly needs consideration as what should be done on that rear part of that land what are the proposals there I don't know what the members saw today planting has actually been planted there to the rear and that was planted some two years ago so the idea is that additional screening will you know people like greener in their gardens and it seemed a sensible place to put it if other questions no thank you very much thank you any questions to the officers council conway the the spacing of the houses we've said is okay the outside space is okay the closest distance I can see is over 22 metres seems to me perhaps in ignorance that is a quite a distance that is the closest distance we have we have for in regards to the controversial plot one so what what are we saying that distance would be for the officers to to be okay with it I think you're referring to the distance between um distance window to window yeah here officers aren't recommending or we're not saying that there's an issue there in terms of the amenities of the neighbours and their outlook or loss of light it's about the principle of the character of the development and extending the built form into this area which is seen more as part of the setting of Hendon hall court so we don't have any issues with light we don't have issues with no as set out in the report the reason for refusal relates to the character and appearance of the area not the amenities of the residents of Hendon hall court okay the correct thank you um had the applicant um gone with the advice of the pre-planning and had the plot one nearer or in the same distance uh to plot two as plot three is would that have likely been approved if I could just clarify the pre-application um was actually quite a different scheme it had it was a terrace of three houses in this area there was nothing proposed over here but it also didn't take its access from Garrick Drive it took its access from the roadway in Hendon hall court so the houses were turned around the other way their frontages were facing there and their rear elevations were facing so it was actually quite a different scheme which officers were supportive of a principle of housing on this part of this site but they didn't actually support the form of that housing and there was various other issues that had been raised so providing a house over here was not part of the pre-application scheme okay Councillor Conway was speaking you mentioned at the beginning about TPO is that is that affected in any way? that's still there that's this tree here and it's there was the plan was amended during this application process to set back the basement and development of this house to make sure it was outside the root protection area so it won't be affected in any way? no subject to conditions thank you okay thank you well I would like to say having been there had a look at it this morning and then looking at all the comments and objections this afternoon what struck me was actually Henton Hall Court itself which is really a landmark building it's something you see from all parts of the A1 as you're driving along in both directions I can't remember the name of the architect and I'm not sure I'm not sure I didn't check if it was locally listed or not but it's certainly a very striking building and a very key part I think of Henton and of Barnet as such although it's not too obviously in the way it's not overlooking or in the way of Henton Hall Court I think plot 1, the house on its own, does look odd from that point of view and does take away from the architectural merits of this building so I'm inclined to go along with the officers there's no further comments we will go to the vote the officers are recommending approval for the reasons put in the report all those in favour of approval refusal sorry sorry I'm sorry the officers are recommending refusal all those who agree with the officers' recommendation of refusal of this application 3 and those who don't agree with the officers' recommendation 2 so that application is refused and we move on to the last application on the agenda 96 Orderly Road thank you chair this item relates to 96 Orderly Road and it's for the demolition of the existing single family dwelling house and the erection of a two-storey detached building rooms in the roof space lower ground floor to form seven flats along with private and communal amenity space off-street parking spaces and storage for cycles and refuse so this is the location plan a spacious corner plot with Aldi Road alongside here and Grand Road here an aerial image the area being residential in character and another area showing the a little closer context in terms of its surroundings these are some site photos of the dwelling important to note that the dwelling does not have any designation be it local or statutory and therefore officers consider the demolition of the building to be acceptable subject to a suitable replacement and this is a view here looking down Aldi Road and the rear elevation here the existing block plan and the existing floor plans and the existing elevations there are some slightly unsympathetic additions that have been undertaken over the course of time and whilst it is noted that the building is of an attractive appearance as I mentioned there is no formal designation for its retention so this is the proposed block plan and in yellow dotted yellow you can see an overlay of the existing footprint and as you can see from here the proposed footprint largely mirrors the existing building footprint say for slightly deeper projection at the rear here forming an out trigger two parking spaces fronting Aldi Road one parking space fronting Graham Road communal amenity space there and soft landscaping providing a sense of space around the built form so this is the proposed basement plan a three bedroom unit with private amenity space at sunken terrace level the ground floor plan another three bedroom unit with its own designated private amenity space and another two bedroom unit you'll notice in terms of the building line this has been stepped back in order to provide an appropriate transition and the proposed first floor plan which comprises of a two bedroom unit a duplex two bedroom unit and another two bedroom unit and lastly the loft space which is another two bedroom unit and the living space of the duplex two bed unit so overall it provides two three bedroom units and five two bedroom units and would be a considerable a considerable uplift for housing provision in the borough and then this is the roof plan the proposed elevations so a lot of work has gone into sort of collaborating with the applicant in order to ensure that this would seamlessly integrate into the street scene and this involves an appropriate transition from the neighboring properties along Grain Road with a single storey element here hip roof form to sort of reflect the local vernacular and then architectural features and detailing to sort of better reflect the local character and this is elevation fronting and this is elevation fronting Audley Road so there you can see the two storey element outrigger which has been set down in order to feature as a subordinate addition the rear elevation and then the side elevation which exposes some of the basement level and this being the only visual manifestation of the basement level and these are some longer street scene elevations to show how it sits within its context the red overlay shows the existing dwelling there and as you can see the ridge height does not exceed and actually sits below the existing building appropriate transitions from the rear outrigger the eaves sits below the property at number 98 Audley Road and the ridge height here sits below the ridge height of number 98 in a similar manner along Graham Road elevation the single storey element allows a transition to account for the decline in property heights as you go down Graham Road and again the ridge height here sits below the existing building and these are some indicative visualizations of the development an attractive corner bay feature projection somewhat mimics the existing building and another visualisation looking from Audley Road and then again looking from the rear here just before moving on to the key considerations members are advised that there is an addendum for this item also members are advised that a little earlier today a couple of emails were received requesting from members of the public requesting nomination of the property for the local listing this has already been sufficiently addressed within the officer report and that has been informed by comments from the council's heritage officer who considers the property of no significant architectural or historic merit to warrant its listing and lastly some inaccuracies were spotted a little earlier today between some of the proposed elevations and their contextual relationship to neighboring properties this has been corrected and the slides demonstrate those corrected versions and therefore members would be voting on those slightly corrected revised plans nothing further to add thank you oh and in terms of the key considerations apologies so the principle of flats is considered acceptable given the mixed local character which comprises of single family dwellings and a number of large scale flats the size scale massing and design would integrate acceptably into locality and has been revised through the course of the application it would provide a good provision of priority family housing and all units would meet the minimum space standards officers don't consider there would be any adverse impact to neighboring occupiers and the highway impact is considered acceptable subject to section 106 for restricting parking permits from future occupiers for the development therefore the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions and the completion of the section 106 agreement thank you all right thank you we have two objectives who wish to speak on this James Kwasi and Azra Siddiqui I don't know which one of you wishes to speak first okay you're Mrs. Siddiqui yeah if you can touch there's a picture of your face you press the face that's it so then if you can introduce yourself say where you live and you have three minutes to speak you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left thank you my name is Azra Siddiqui I live at 121 Audley Road I live directly opposite the property of 96 Audley Road and I've lived here for more than 20 years we the residents are strongly opposed to this proposal there have been 173 letters of objections and a petition of 213 signatures we are not happy about it this is compared to zero letters of support in terms of the scale appearance and impact on surrounding area we object to replacing this family home with an over development of the site with seven flats and 27 occupants this is going to cause a cramming of too many people in a small area we already have a busy road we understand the need for development but the majority of the properties on this road are houses or conversions of two to three flats as far as we are aware the flats have been converted but not needing to cause a demolition of the existing building so this is also seems to be a first for our area we also object to the size of the property over four floors with a basement flat which again is not the norm of our road and that we are not aware of any flood risk or basement risk assessment the existing house is attractive as has already been mentioned it's in the Edwardian style and should be preserved due to its architectural and historical significance we think this should be kept and renovated and converted with fewer flats which I think most residents would accept instead a big modern block is proposed which will be out of character water pressure there is a problem with water pressure in the area having more occupants on the road will add to this problem we note that Thames Water have not given any comment traffic and parking most of our flats do not have driveways and so we rely on street parking with a proposal of 27 more people it is likely to bring in at least another 10 to 12 cars this will bring a huge pressure on a street where we already struggle to park we sometimes have to park further away due to lack of space you have one minute remaining even if parking permits are restricted for the block most people have cars and will park regardless our parking restrictions are only for a one hour window so people are going to come park at all other times loss of privacy the proposed block has multiple large windows fourteen overlooking the opposite side of Audley Road including a five bay window which is enormous and is really, you know, a first for Audley Road so I don't know why they made such big windows but we think this is going to cause a loss of privacy and it's going to be overlooking our properties including mine, which is directly opposite also the property next door at 98 they have not addressed the distancing because there is a habitable room and it is not a secondary window it is a primary habitable room so we want to discuss that as well noise and disturbance from multiple occupants will lead to a change in what is a quiet, peaceful neighbourhood we also believe the existing building is Edwardian in beautiful red brick and is actually has historical significance by Sir Audley Dallas Neild whose names and many that's time, thank you we have written to Historic England to try and get it listed Thank you, if you can just wait a minute to see if there are any questions Members have any questions? No, I don't think we have any questions at the moment so thank you very much and James Kwashi, if you would like to come forward and yes, thank you Mr Kwashi again, if you can introduce yourself, say where you live and you have three minutes to speak can be given a warning when you have one minute left My name is James Kwashi I live at 109 Audley Road within less than 50 metres from the proposed development I am in complete agreement with what my fellow objector has said but in addition I want to elaborate on some of the other concerns so in terms of the highway issue first of all the proposal states that only three spaces will be displaced onto the road that's incorrect because you would have to then remove two spaces on the road in order to create the access for the two on site so that needs to be taken into account also, in terms of the condition not to give parking permits I'm not sure how that helps because at the moment the CPZ is only for one hour which means that outside of that 10 to 11 period the people, the new inhabitants of that development can park as many cars as they wish and just to note that there was also a review of the CPZ in 2023 which recommended that the controls will be increased to about 10 hours to date that has still not happened and I want to talk also about the HMO student accommodation concerns which several objectives have raised at the core of it is about the density of occupation and the attendant problems of noise and social behaviour and flight tipping this behaviour generally derives from the high turnover of residents in such accommodation who are not invested in the community increasing the balance of such accommodation therefore fundamentally changes the character of the area whether intended or not we know that there is a C3 use condition attached now, however, notwithstanding this condition the lack of enforcement of planning conditions does not provide residents with any confidence of the effectiveness of such conditions as I'm sure the planning officer is well aware there are several dwellings in the area that theoretically are supposed to be in C3 use which clearly I'm not I think I've also touched on the issue on the flight tipping concerns again, here, I think the officer's assessment misses the point the drivers of flight tipping, okay, is not just simply the lack of the provision of refuge space but it goes to the whole density issue those areas that are used for such apartments you know, generally have a high turnover of people used for rental accommodation and so on and every time there's a change of tenant there will be items such as mattresses and so on which cannot be disposed of in those waste areas provided and so eventually end up being flighted in conclusion, the proposed the proposal represents an unacceptable over development of the site and sets a precedent of for more large scale development of this kind which can only have a negative impact that's time, thank you had you finished or do you want to just I just had a few more comments but that's fine thank you I'm happy to take any questions you may have on that questions? yeah, it looks like you've explained yourself very well we don't have any questions for you I think we may have more questions for the officers from what you've said, thank you thank you so, questions for the officers Chancellor Barnes oh, sorry, sorry I'm missing out more important people I've got them listed here and I've missed them out yes, Councillor Rijikesh Chakraborty one of the ward councillors is not able to be here but he's provided a written statement which we're going to listen to now Dear Planning Committee members I would like to thank the Governance Officer for reading the statement submitted on behalf of all three West Hendon ward councillors we are strongly opposed to this application we are very concerned about the proliferation of HMOs in West Hendon and the impact this has on local immunities and residents we believe that the historical conversion of 94 Audley Road to a HMO comprising of 11 flats cannot be used as a president to assume the conversion of 96 Audley Road into a HMO containing 7 flats would not create negative externalities while there are some properties that have been converted into HMOs the increase in HMOs as proposed in this application would undermine the character of the area when considering how the property is likely to be used while the outer facade of the building may resemble similar properties the increase in the number of flats in the proposal would lead to undermining the residential nature of the road becoming a potential hub for more fly tipping noise pollution and antisocial behaviour the area would lose yet another historical building due to the proposed conversion it would inculcate a change from a family oriented street to one where there is increasing density contributing to over development there are insufficient plans to provide immunities or infrastructure for the expected increase in the number of residents when the house could instead be reserved for a single large family like most of the homes on the road when considering the steep slope on Graham Road and the location of the house on the corner of Audley Road and Graham Road makes the building appear awkward while the current Audley house is visually appealing the proposed design lacks garden space and does not blend with the surrounding architectural style the heritage characters and current usage of the building should be preserved thank you and then then we have the agent James Cohen I'm sorry I nearly missed you out as well so again if you could introduce yourself and you have three minutes to speak and we'll give you a warning when you have one minute left yes thank you okay good evening chair and members thank you my name is James Cohen and I'm the planning agent for this application thank you for providing me with the opportunity to address the committee tonight and I'd also like to extend that thanks to the officers at Barnet who have worked closely with us throughout the application process so the existing site is currently underutilized it consists of a large detached house that occupies a substantial plot in its current state the site provides minimal benefit to the local community the proposed development will transform this underutilized parcel of land into much needed housing aligning with national, regional and local policies that prioritize the provision of additional homes especially family sized units I would emphasize that all of the flats being proposed are two bedrooms or larger as encouraged by the emerging local plan so we really are providing several family sized units here there appears to be a bit of a misunderstanding between objectors and councillors that this is a HMO scheme it's simply not a HMO scheme it's seven family sized units which to me is an indication of how over-sized the existing dwelling is the site's location makes it particularly appropriate for residential development situated equidistant from Hendon Overground Station and Hendon Central Tube Station it benefits from excellent access to public transport and local amenities underutilized sites in well connected areas of the borough like this is exactly where we need to provide new family homes for our residents To further alleviate concerns raised by some residents around parking pressure I would stress that future residents will not be eligible for on-street parking permits this arrangement coupled with the provision of three off-street parking spaces for the larger units as well as a secure storage for 16 bicycles will ensure that the surrounding road network and local parking provision will remain largely unaffected by this development The design of the proposed building You have one minute remaining Thank you The design of the proposed building is another key strength of this scheme The architecture combines traditional materials seen in the surrounding area and on the existing property but with a contemporary touch ensuring that the development complements its setting whilst introducing a high standard of modern design The design of the building's scale limited to two storeys with a roof is entirely in keeping with the existing character of the road and we've seen those images comparing the existing building to the proposed It's also worth noting that Audley Road already includes a mix of housing types including flats such as the 11 unit building directly opposite the site and there is a clear pattern of large corner plots along this road and throughout the area being utilised to provide more housing The proposed rear projection along Audley Road responds to the general depth of outriggers benefiting adjoining properties along Graham Road I'm conscious that neighbouring residents raise concern regarding the character of the area and the density of development That's fine, thank you Thank you very much, I'm very happy to answer any questions that we may have Alright, thank you Yeah, I wanted to ask you a little bit about the immunity space Okay I mean the basement flat has got a sort of basement area in the middle of it there are small gardens for two of the flats and then shared garden for the other two for which the access means they have to come out of the front door walk all the way around on the path to get to that garden So I wondered if you could explain the arrangement of the immunity space and why you think that's sufficient? Yeah, absolutely I mean we're fortunate to sit on a corner plot here where we have that side access to the garden for the communal immunity space It was something that the officer and I spoke about at length and it was a kind of pros and cons against the family size unit on the ground floor and the private immunity for that versus the access to the communal immunity there was an option to provide an internal corridor through the building out to the communal garden but it would have impacted the ground floor three bedroom unit and so with that side access considered and the kind of fortunate position being on a corner plot we thought that this was the best arrangement Residents still have access to that communal immunity space Yes, they need to exit the property and go around but it felt like the kind of right arrangement for the, you know, with the three, the three bedroom unit on the ground floor considered as well Questions? Councilor Barnes and then Councilor Roberts Thank you Was it considered whether the existing building could be developed without the need for demolition? It seems a great shame Yes, yes, I mean our approach as an architecture practice is always to try and look at retaining the existing building and you'll see that we submitted a number of applications before this scheme was submitted to extend the existing property The fact of the matter is there wasn't, you know, we couldn't extend the property enough to properly utilize the plot It is quite a large detached dwelling but it sits on a very, very large plot and the extensions that we would be able to achieve to that existing house simply wouldn't give us the number of dwellings that this site can provide for future residents Just on that point, I would like to highlight again that the site isn't designated in any manner from a heritage or design perspective There is actually a permitted development right that allows the demolition of the property without any planning permission being required Again, we did our all to retain the property but it wasn't the right option for this particular plot Councilor Roberts Thank you. One of the previous speakers have rejected, referred very much to HMOs and the potential for HMOs Yeah Can you just clarify the situation on that? Yes, absolutely I mean firstly there is an Article 4 direction, borough-wide, that restricts HMO development This proposal is quite clearly for two-bedroom and three-bedroom units There is no suggestion within the description of development that say HMO, I don't know where that concern has come from I really don't Obviously you're slightly biased but 96 has received 172 objections Yeah 94, which has many more units, only received 11 Yeah Is there something that has really upset the residents about this that is different to 94, which has many more units? Yeah, I mean I'm not entirely sure of the history of 94 and the reason why there was less objection I think it's important to highlight that we had a slightly unique consultation process here because one of the residents decided to create a QR code and hang it up on trees throughout the area encouraging people to scan that QR code and automatically submit an objection So that certainly hasn't helped us as the applicants In this case significantly upping the number of objections that were received I completely appreciate that there is concern from neighbouring residents But we also have a responsibility to utilise well-connected sites like this to provide much-needed families Family dwellings, you know, if we can't use plots like this to provide those family units, where can we? Any further questions? No, thank you very much Thank you very much, thank you guys And then Yeah, now we go to officers I wonder if we could talk a little bit about the basement And the amenity space with the basement It looks as though it's quite enclosed in So what is the access to sunlight there? What sort of sunlight gets into the actual flat itself? I mean, you are correct that it sort of sits at a lower ground level because it's basement level However, it is of a good size and shape So in terms of its usability It does exceed the space standard that we would require for such a unit In terms of daylight, I mean, it's not really sort of shaded or blocked by anything that would sort of inhibit sunlight But obviously that lower level would mean that it would sort of receive slightly less sunlight than you would normally get when it's sort of at surface level But again, no real inherent sort of use given the size and sort of the shape in terms of its usability with direct access obviously from that unit into the space I had to ask any further questions or comments? Yes, Councilor Browns So the developer is claiming that it's going to fit in with the existing housing Not sort of understanding the technicalities of these The specifications, do you think they would be reasonably similar to other existing properties? Well, I would say that a lot of work has gone in during the process of the application to sort of reform it and ensure that it sufficiently references the local character Whilst also not sort of stifling innovation or creativity Some of the aspects which I can sort of highlight is the hip roof forms Which reflect the locality? The two-storey out rigger which again reflects all those along Graham Road The basement level which as initially submitted was sort of exposed and created a three-storey building And so we've sort of reduced that and concealed it so it only appears as a two-storey building again sort of you know looking at sort of the locality Again the single-storey element here is to allow for that sort of transition in terms of the decline of properties down Graham Road The corner bay again is another you know that was sort of carried out to sort of mimic the existing building And have an appropriate sort of corner feature for a corner plot So you know there's been a lot of input that's gone in from urban design offices during the course of the process that sort of informed the iterations and the evolution of the scheme And so you know in conclusion we consider that it sufficiently references the local vernacular and would fit into the street scene No further questions? So we'll go to the vote before we vote I must have considered this quite a lot and at the end of the consideration I do have concerns about the overdevelopment I know it's the same height, more or less the same footprint, slightly wider at the sides But looking at it, it does look like a much larger building than anywhere else there Particularly with the basement level and rooms in the roof space So I'm wondering about whether this is completely an overdevelopment I also have concerns about the amenity space although I know the amenity space meets with our requirements But the poor amenity space and poor access to the amenity space I have concerns with So I am not convinced by this application I must say But if we can go to the vote now The officers are recommending approval, all those in favour of approval Three Three And those against Two So that application is approved And as the next two items have been deferred that is the end of tonight's meeting Thank you very much And I would just like to say that Thank you very much.

Transcript