Transcript

Transcript

Good evening, everyone. We'll start the meeting now, if everyone's ready. My name is Claire Farrier. I'm the chair of this committee. So thank you all for coming and attending this evening. I will ask members of the committee and officers to introduce themselves so that they know who we are, and then I'll go through the procedure of how we're going to go. So, as I say, my name is Claire Farrier. I'm a councillor for East Finchley Ward, and I'm chairing the committee. So if the rest of the committee can introduce themselves first. Good evening, everyone. I'm councillor Tim Roberts, representing Underhill Ward. Richard Barnes, representing Barnet Vale Ward. Councillor Cully, representing Collingdale South. Councillor Elliot Simberg, representing the borough. Heidi Erzga, planning manager. I'm Thomas Wong, planning officer. Bastian Markowitz, planning officer. Jonathan Mills, planning manager. Therese. Mark Springthorpe, planning manager. Jimmy Walsh, legal advisor to the committee. Karina Dimitriou, governance officer. Scarlett Ryan, governance officer. We ask that you will remain seated throughout the meeting unless you are called to the table to address the committee. Please note that meetings are recorded and broadcast is allowed for in all by the council. And by attending, either in person or online, you may be picked up on recordings. So council recordings are covered by a previously noticed and that can be found on our website. So the procedure is for each application, the planning officer will present the application and each speaker will then have three minutes to address the committee and the governance officer will inform you when there is a minute left. And we will then have the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and then of the officers and then to discuss. And the committee will then determine the application and we will announce the committee's decision. So please note that currently we're in the pre-election period in advance of a by-election in Finchley Church End on the 6th of March. So during this time, ordinary council business can continue, but members are reminded not to refer to candidates or to parties in relation to the upcoming election. So thank you for your support in all of this. We'll then move on to the agenda. So we've all seen the minutes of the last meeting. Can you agree the minutes? Thank you. Absence of members, Councillor Conway is on the committee, he's not able to be here this evening and there's no substitute for him. Welcome, Councillor Simberg. I think it's the first meeting you've actually attended of this committee, so welcome to be on here. All the other members are on the agenda. Do members have any interests, financial interests? Councillor Simberg. Item 12, Fair Islands in my ward, Mill Hill. So that's just not to... But do you have any interest or you haven't... No interest at all. Let's just... You're still going to be on the committee. That's fine. Right. There are no dispensations granted by the monitoring officer. The addendum is published. I think everybody's seen the addendum that came out this afternoon. And we'll move on. Slight change on the agenda. One item, item 11, White Ways, Hill View Gardens, has been deferred to the next meeting. So, I think everybody has been told, but if anybody is here to hear or to speak on White Ways, that has been deferred and won't be heard tonight. And a slight change in the order on the agenda. The first one we're going to hear is 94 Kingsley Way. And then we will hear the application for Fur Islands. I believe most people here are possibly here about Fur Islands. So, we're going to hear Fur Islands after that at number 7, followed by the other items in order. So, we'll start off on the agenda with 94 Kingsley Way. Good evening, Michi. The application before you is the application at 94 Kingsley Way. It's to fell a protected oak tree standing in the rear garden. The reason the application is before you today is because there's implication of cost should the application be approved or refused. The protected tree is just located here at the rear garden of 94 Kingsley Way. And the trees implicated in causing subsidence damage to Abingdon House on Emmet Close. This is a tree from aerial view. You see just there, as it sort of provides, sort of, it's part of a whole bank of trees along the back of, back gardens of Kingsley Way. This is the site plan from the applicant and T7 and T7 is the subject tree of this application. The other trees that are all protected by virtue of being a conservation area. This is the effected property and the tree and this is the application tree, just here. This is a close-up version of the tree taken in the winter and this is the oak tree standing here, just there. This is the damage at the rear of the property as the photographs were taken in the summer last year and you can see there's quite considerable movement at the rear of the property. This is another side of the property, you see typical subsidence cracking occurring around the windows and this is a photograph provided by the applicant and this is some of the internal damage that's occurring. Our council engineers have reviewed all the information submitted and have concluded that the tree is implicated in causing damage. There's sub-seasonal movement showing the foundations moving up and down, oak tree roots were found beneath the foundations and there's obvious, as you've seen in the photographs, there's obvious damage from that. The key considerations of the case, obviously the trees is part of the hamster garden suburb and the character of that is to be sort of a woodland suburb and sort of garden, houses within gardens and mature trees. So it has important visual amenity. The engineers have looked at the documentation and the tree is implicated in the subsidence damage that's occurring there, although there are other trees in the garden. However, the applicants have not provided any alternative solutions that would remedy the need not to remove the trees like pruning or installing a root barrier. They haven't suggested any of those. The cost of potential for liability on this case, if it's refused, would be somewhere in the region of £150,000 for the underpinning of the property, were the application refused. And the recommendation is, as usual, it's for the committee to decide whether, on balance, the evidence supports the application or it should be refused on the basis there's insufficient evidence to justify the removal. Happy to answer any questions. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Yes, we don't have any speakers on this. So we'll go into questions and discussions. Councillor Talek. Thank you. Is there any definitive proof that this tree is responsible, considering the distance from the house and the fact that there are trees much closer? The evidence is they've provided evidence. They've found oak tree roots underneath the foundations. So the oak trees present and extracting soil and moisture from below the foundations of the property, causing the clay to shrink and the foundations to subside. There is cyclical movement. The foundations go up and down in the summer. The soil shrinks in the summer and expands in the winter with natural wetting. There is, and those are sort of a kind of a key elements. The soil is London clay, shrinkable. And those are the key factors. The oak tree is part of a matrix of all the other trees in and around the area. So it's implicated, and the applicants think the removal of this tree would help remedy the movement that's occurring. Sorry, can I just ask, were they substantial roots from the oak tree? I can't remember off the top of my head. They're all one millimetre. One millimetre. Yeah, so they're quite small. Thank you. Councillor Barnes. When we visited the site yesterday, we noticed there was a couple of other relatively small trees which were a lot closer, which had been felled recently. Do you know when they were removed? They were present when I was there in August. And I haven't heard back from the applicant to say that it had been removed. I did raise the question, why haven't you removed all these trees prior to applying for removing the TPO tree? And their opinion was that the smaller trees weren't the significant factor in causing the damage. But obviously they were a contributory factor. Thank you. Tim Berg. Well, the insurance companies, what was their recommendation? To fell the tree. Okay. Thank you. There's indications, I think, that the tree could be possibly 100 years old. And in which case that tree was extremely well established a long time ago. The building has survived for a very long time without any indication of any damage. Does that not indicate that it is not, therefore, risking any harm to the building? We kind of have to take the applications as we find them. Yes, the tree, I think the tree probably predates the construction of the houses in and around the 1920s. But the building standards back in the 1920s don't relate to what's required now. And so you can't really make that comparison. Was there any recommendations for a root barrier? No. As well as fell in the tree? They didn't recommend that. Okay. Although there's space for a root barrier. There is a space for a root barrier. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Talley. Sorry, you mentioned that there was no talk of pruning. Would that have made any substantial difference? It would help in regular tree pruning. It's proven to reduce the amplitude of movement below the soil and so it alleviates the problem. Can I just go over something you just said before? If we refuse consent to fill this tree, what's the council's livency? Did you say £150,000? There's potential up to £150,000 for the underpinning. But I think there's quite a lot of mitigation in place of the vegetation, the distance, the fact that a root barrier is probably a feasible alternative to removal or underpinning. Is it not feeling that the building was constructed when the roots were already in place? There's potential that a tree roots would have been present. It's hard to say. I note from the report that the tree is implicated but it's not the only causative factor and there's no evidence that this is necessarily the main cause of the damage or even therefore that felling this tree would put an end to the damage if there are other causative factors. So yes, I mean there are implications. We may be asked to pay something towards it as in all these cases. I don't know if we've got any figures of how many applications we have been asked to pay towards or how much there are. But we're looking at the immunity value of trees in particular in the garden suburb which was very much around the trees and the trees have always been very important. So we're looking at that, balanced against the financial implications. So, any other comments? Yes, last question. Is there any feedback from the trust in the suburb? Have they come back to... They haven't commented on this application. No comments. Okay. Do we know what the overall feeling is about the felling trees? I've got guests. The feeling from when I've met with the Hamster Garden Suburb Trust, sorry, Hamster Garden Suburb Residence Association tree group is very, very keen to see none of the oak trees and none of the trees removed. The trust does its best. When I've spoken to Frank Hawkins who's their arbor apoptualist in the Hamster Garden Suburb, they're working really hard to retain the sort of large mature oak trees as part of that legacy that's come through from the land prior to it's been development is the large oak trees. They want to keep those trees present. And the owners of property, has anyone spoken to them as to how they feel about the felling tree? They've not made any comments. None to them. Okay. I see there's no representation. Okay. Okay. Shall we go to the vote then? So, there's no opposite's recommendation for this one. So, we are voting to either approve this application or to refuse the application. All those in favour of approving the application to fill this oak tree? That's one. And those in favour of refusing the application? That's four. So, that application is refused. And we move on now to the next item, which as I said, we are bringing forward on the agenda of the island and the Ridgeway. Okay. This application relates to the establishment of a children's nursery together with a single-storey site extension and associated landscaping at a site between Burton Hole Lane and the Ridgeway, Mill Hill. It follows on from a previously refused scheme and takes into account interim pre-application engagement with the LPA. The site currently comprises a large detached building, formerly in use as a dwelling, and which is a locally listed building. The site itself is within the Mill Hill Conservation Area and Metropolitan Greenbelt, but represents previously developed land surrounded by other development on all sides, and which as a consequence does not strongly contribute to purposes A, B, or D of paragraph 143 of the MPPF relating to the designation of grey belt land. The main building is noted as being intact and is of architectural interest, though aside from the live-in guardians, it has not been occupied in its original manner for some time, showing some signs of neglect to the building and grounds. In particular, the former garage and associated hard sanding are in a state of disrepair and are scheduled to be demolished as part of this proposal. Comparing the existing and the proposed site plans, the replacement building envelope, notwithstanding the wheelchair access ramp, would not encroach any further north or westward into the grounds, safeguarding existing mature trees and addressing reason four of the previous refusal. The proposed plans provide for a baby room and toddler room at ground floor level, preschool children at first floor level, and staff space at second floor level. The total number of children has been reduced to 80 and staff at 22 operating on a shift pattern across the day. The extension will be subservient in scale and commensurate in design with the existing building, appearing as a proportionate addition more appropriate to its setting within the green belt and conservation area in contrast to the much larger and contrasting refuse scheme. As such, reasons one and two of the previous refusal are also considered to have been addressed. Reason three has been addressed through undertaking a nursery needs assessment and is supported by the Council's Early Years Team. The final reason for refusal pursuant to the previous scheme relates to the assessment and mitigation of highway impacts, in particular vehicle trip generation in what is a low P-TAL area. The proposal would create eight parking spaces together with a carriage driveway to facilitate staff parking and pick up and drop off of children arriving by car. The justification has been set out in the report and in the addendum and will be further supported by a travel plan, parking management plan, parking restrictions and a range of highway works, all to be secured by way of condition and obligation. On that basis, the application is recommended for approval. Thank you. We have two objectives speaking on this. Liz Fitzgerald and Zoe Samuelson. I don't know which order you wish to speak in. And then we have Councilor Chinsky as well. Thank you. So, who is speaking first? Thank you. If you can turn the microphone on. There's a picture of a face with a speech bubble. That's it, yeah. Okay. And then 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. Thank you. Thank you. Zoe Samuelson, resident. Madam Chair, members. Section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 clearly states, A local planning authority shall not entertain an application unless the requirements are met, and that any person who knowingly or recklessly issues a false or misleading certificate is guilty of an offence. Certificate A claims the applicant owns all of the land. They do not. Everson Young, know this. Barnet, the surveying authority, have failed to safeguard the integrity of the application. Fully aware that the applicant has not secured agreements to alter, move, and add rights of way over neighbouring land is acting more as an enabler. The admission of a grampian condition could be considered abusive process and fails to demonstrate that they pay due regard to the children's safety. The independent transport report, TBA, is flawed, has significant omissions likely to sway the decision-maker's recommendation. A third-party information disclaimer absolves them from any responsibility. The Contamination Report gives a minor mention of a garden nursery. No other document gives weight to eight-plus businesses for whom Burton Hole Lane is the only means for access to trade. Two are Barnet leaseholders, one a working farm with the stabling. Garden and aquatic centres are used by many service providers for sensory stimulation and wellbeing. A core meet-up for multi-generational family outings, thus attracting all ages and ability, while assisting in the reduction of social isolation and fostering good relations. Let's not forget the elderly. LA surveyors failed to fully assess other granted schemes. Ayrton House and Munster Mill has to place elderly and disabled residents as the overarching protected characteristic. Two schemes connected by Burton Hole Lane, their desired pedestrian route, cut through the vehicle movements of this proposal. The applicant dismissed or omitted anything that can demonstrate there is adequate nursery provision. This includes a rival nursery chain as out of area. It's undersurprised and perfectly aligned to Milbrook Park. Two example nurses used to mitigate trafficking concerns are not comparable, one of which was later dismissed as alternative precision as it wouldn't hold 80 children. Thank you and I'm happy to take questions. Any questions? Councillor Roberts and Councillor Barr. You mentioned the other two businesses that are in that location, the garden centre and the farm. How would a children's nursery in any way adversely impact them? The traffic. The traffic and the elderly who will come from Mastered Mill and from Ayrton House. And it's a juxtaposition. They haven't considered any of the traffic. It's not just a garden centre. We're talking three sports venues. We're talking landscape gardening companies. And there's a pond light down there as well, isn't there? Aquatic centre, cafe, garden centre, three sports venues, three event venues, a farm. And have any of them raised this issue with you? The bridal path. They've all objected. They've all objected? Yes. Independently. OK, thank you. Good evening. You made some sort of reference at the beginning towards children's safety. I didn't quite catch what that was for. Is that traffic again? So in order to make it safe for the children to arrive outside of the nursery and to cross, they need to put an infrastructure in on land that they don't own. And they haven't included it. They've claimed that they own that land. So that can't happen. Do you know who the ownership of that land is? It's subject to first registration. OK, thank you. Councillor Simberg. I've got two questions. One is relating to this item you're just mentioning. So can you explain this land that's not owned? Where is it on? I mean, if you can show us on the map, where is that land? So I have a map from the land registry that shows you the extent of the land that surrounds the site. The whole site. The whole site. They only have a right-of-way for residential. Yeah, it's not a written right-of-way. They've only got an established right-of-way. And it could be classified as intensification if they take change of use. So there's no guarantee they would get a challenge from whoever is registering the land that they do not want intensified right-of-way across their land. So do you have access to that? Well, you can't. Currently, it's residential and they have got an acknowledged, established use of way. After that, nothing. And therefore, it's not going to be safe for the children. How can you have children going in and out so close to a road where, if you can't even alter the first corner, no footway can be added? There's no refuge for them. Can you expand on that? Sorry. So I read the previous application front to back and noted that the independent transport company was the same company that did this application. But the difference is, on the first one, they submitted an on-street parking assessment. And on this one, they haven't. So why have they omitted that? Because it's going to look bad. Because over a mile of yellow lines have been added to protect the businesses, which is 260 parking spaces. And where are all Ridgeway Views, St Vincent's, where are they all going to park? Thank you. Sorry, I'm not quite clear on that. You're saying that businesses won't be able to park because of this? So there's only 30 parking spaces for the entire Ridgeway between Partingdale Lane and Marspit Hill. And most of them, all day, are occupied by residents of Ridgeway Views because they've got limited parking. It's £25,000 per parking spaces and the Mayor of London removed multiple spaces. How is this application going to affect that? So it means that nobody can park legally to pick up or drop off their children? The drop off, as we've seen, they've got drop off on the site. But it's eight parking spaces, Council. And with all due respect, they're diminutive parking spaces that aren't industry standard to open a driver's door one side and a passenger door the other to get the children out of an ISO fixed seat. Right. Yes, we may ask the agent to clarify about that. But, I mean, from the report and what we've seen, there is a way of dropping off. And you mentioned putting infrastructure on land that isn't their land to make it safe. I'm not quite sure what you meant by that. So the entire highway's approval is based on having an ingress and egress vehicle and a separate pedestrian entry. And they haven't secured rights of way to do that. So none of that can be done. None of it. Again, we'll ask the officers, but I understood that that's been recommended by Highways and they pay towards that. But, yeah, we'll ask for confirmation of that. Okay. No, thank you very much. Sorry, Councillor Cunningham. Can I just have... Oh, I'll actually ask the officers later. Yeah. Is there any other questions? Okay, thank you. I think that's all. And then we have Liz Fitzgerald. Next. Thank you. And again, if you can introduce yourself, and then 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, Councillors. My name's Liz Fitzgerald. I'm Managing Director of Barker Parry Town Planning. I'm representing local residents from the area this evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. You will have seen the note that I circulated earlier in the week. And I don't intend to rehearse those comments, but draw out some significant points for yourselves. The site is located in the Greenbelt. With the change in the MPPF, there is scope for the site to be considered as Greybelt. However, that is subject to there being a demonstrable unmet need for nursery spaces in the borough, not locally in the borough. The Council's own evidence in the form of the Child Care Sufficiency Assessment 2024 shows there's no demonstrable unmet need in the borough. As the previous inspector identified, the opportunity to deliver choice is welcomed, but that is over and above an unmet need, which is the test for this to be Greybelt. Simply saying there is a need due to being adjacent to new development is not a robust argument. When a need was not identified as part of those applications and when nurseries locally are actually advertising vacant spaces. The tests applied by the earlier inspector remain valid and the scheme does not represent very special circumstances and will have a fundamental impact on the openness of the site in functional terms, so that's transport and movement terms. In heritage terms, the committee report fails to address the tests associated with less than substantial harm. The test for that is the optimal use of the building and for there to be a public benefit. Neither are actually touched upon in the committee report at all, and no further evidence has been advanced by the applicant as part of this application to demonstrate that this is the most optimal use of the building, a criticism that was advanced in the appeal that was determined more recently. Traffic is the most significant concern locally. Other applications in Barnet have demonstrated that nurseries struggle to recruit staff from within Barnet, where they are reliant on public transport. Recently this committee approved essentially housing for nursery staff to live locally because they couldn't afford to unless it was affordable. So we're in a position here that staff will drive to the site, 11 parking, 11 staff I believe. Parents similarly will not park some distance from the site and then walk invariably with buggies and small children circa 20 minutes to the nursery along a busy road. They will either adjust their drop off and pick up times to enable them to park on Burton Hole Lane, or they will park illegally based on it being a few minutes. I note there's an in and out, it restricts movements through the site, you can't turn right out of the site, and therefore the easy option is to park on Burton Hole Lane illegally. The traffic will be chaos with residents trapped in their homes, unable to move along Burton Hole Lane, and businesses unable to get their deliveries. Parking restrictions were put in place to alleviate parking congestion and ease the flow of traffic in the area. It has placed greater pressure on the remaining on-street parking provision, and as a result, anything that encourages illegal on-street parking should be strongly resisted. We implore you to refuse this application. So you're turned up, you can just very briefly in the sentence sum up. Thank you. That was literally my last sentence, Councillor, thank you. Right, thank you. Questions? Councillor Simberg. You mentioned about green-grey belts. Yes. Can you explain that a bit more? Because I didn't think there was any definition yet set on what is actually grey-belt. Certainly, Councillor. In the December 2024 MPPF, we now have tests that the Government have applied to how to define grey-belt. Setting aside housing, because that does have a separate test with golden rules, but for commercial developments the tests are clear. It has to be a sustainable site, having regard to potential some relaxation on that for rural areas, and separately that there has to be a demonstrable unmet need for the use proposed in order for it to be considered grey-belt. Alongside the tests of the purposes of the grey-belt, so only three tests of the purposes. To be fair, this site meets those tests in terms of the purposes of the grey-belt, so I won't go through the nuances of that. The element here that is of concern is the fact that there is a demonstrable unmet need, and that hasn't been demonstrated on a borough-wide level. Nurseries, ultimately, don't necessarily have a local need. Parents have choice. It's not like schools where it's off your postcode. You can go nearer to work. You can go nearer to grandparents. There isn't necessarily just a ward-level need here. We have to look at it on the borough-wide level, and that's where, in my opinion, there is no demonstrable unmet need for the borough. You say you're a resident around the Ridgeway. Can you explain to the committee what happens on a morning on the Ridgeway regarding traffic? In terms of the Ridgeway particularly, the Ridgeway is heavily trafficked. Until the yellow lines went in, we had a lot of congestion would move along the Ridgeway as they tried to move in and out of parked cars. That's been somewhat alleviated by the parking restrictions, but we still have a lot of large vehicles, busy traffic demand on the Ridgeway. People trying to cut corners coming through Burton Hole Lane as well, coming round to try and circumvent queues. The demand for parking, as you've already heard, that is left is exceptionally high and very rarely empty. People will try to park in the pub car park, for example. Trying to cross the road is nigh on impossible in that area. Trying to get out of Burton Hole Lane onto the Ridgeway can be a nightmare in rush hour as well. Any other questions? Councillor Roberts. Residential development is not completed in that area. No. In which case, can you not perceive the need for a nursery sometime future? Young families would like very much to move to a very desirable residential area part of Mill Hill. In which case, there will be demand that should be supplied by local demand, rather than having to get into cars and drive the other side of the borough. As I'm sure you're aware, Councillor, when we consider any planning application coming forward, the education team will provide you with an assessment of need that arises as a consequence of those developments, whether it be early years need, whether it be primary, secondary need, post-16 need. And as a consequence of that, at that time in the consideration of any application, the education authority will seek contributions invariably towards provision. None of those applications identified a need that would arise as a consequence of the developments for early years provision. There is no doubt preference to not getting in the car. But that doesn't mean that parents don't prefer children to be in a nursery nearer to where they work, because it's easier to drop them off and get to the office and then pick them up in the times available, than it is to try and get stuck in traffic to come back nearer to home to pick them up, for example. So it comes down to parental choice with early years, which is why looking at it on the borough level is a more accurate assessment of need over the local level in a ward basis. We also have the situation here that we do still have vacant spaces within the ward for nursery accommodation. There's been signs up all over the ward for a long time identifying need. And yet we're being told, oh no, there's no spaces available. And that's just simply not the case here. And if that forecast need had been identified as part of those planning applications, when probably this committee or an earlier iteration of this committee granted them, you would have been seeking contributions towards that need that would have gone into, either through SIL or whatever else, would have gone into identified projects that could be brought forward either through working with partners to bring forward nursery schemes or in other forms. This is not necessarily today. It could be five years from today or whatever. There will be demand, future demand for nursery education, nursery facilities in an area that's constantly being developed. I don't disagree, but it's about whether or not there is a forecast on a demonstrable unmet need. You can't rely on planning permissions that have been granted to state there is going to be an unmet need because that need would have been considered through pupil ratios and forecasting at the time that those applications were determined. Don't get me wrong, Councillor, if you've got a position that you've got other sites may be coming forward in the borough, you've got a new local plan coming forward. All of those things should be factored in with that plan and any allocated sites and then that need will be identified at those stages. That doesn't mean there's a need today and that's the test for Greybelt. Is that coming down to saying that parents who will be purchasing properties locally in that area will not be able to take their children to a local nursery? They're going to have to get them their cars and drive elsewhere in the borough? Not at all, Councillor. There are spaces available in that ward. There are existing vacancies available for children that move in today and the Barnett childcare sufficiency assessment makes it clear that there is no unmet need within the borough. It's the future need that I'm talking about. Once the residential development has been completed there could be many, many young families there with young children looking for a local facility. And you're denying them that. No, Councillor, that's not what I'm saying at all. And what I'm saying is that need is identified when those applications, when those planning permissions for those new houses are proposed. So it's the same as primary school places, for example. When an application comes into your cells for consideration, the Education Department will advise on what the potential pupil yield is from that development. That pupil yield is identified at that time and therefore the relevant bodies can forecast the need and they can make sure there's places available to accommodate those children. When those applications came in there was no identified need for early years provision and there is still no identified need for early years provision within Barnett. And it is exactly the same proviso, it's exactly the same pupil yield assessment that's done for early years as it is done for primary and secondary and post-16 places. Any local residents will disagree with the position that you're taking on that. Thank you. I've read over the last few days of the London wide drop in the birth rate and the subsequent effect it's going to have on school places. Is there any actual, do you know of any evidence that this will have any effect in this particular area? Certainly across Barnett, my submissions to the last application actually demonstrated that there was a drop in birth rates in Barnett and that the indication was that generally across the country, not just here, we are going to see that drop in trend to the point that even the Department for Education have slowed down building rates at primary education because of that forecast slowed down in birth rates. So you've been speaking just about the nursery and the use of the nursery, so not about any other use for this particular building, which has been out of use, as we know, for a number of years, since the major research centre closed down. I mean, it's not necessarily relevant to this application that we're looking at to be of a nursery. But would your objections be similar to any other use that this building is put to? I think it depends on the nature of the use. The test for heritage, for example, is to demonstrate that this is the most optimal use of the building. That is part of the test for less than substantial balance argument. There is no evidence in this application to demonstrate that any other use of this building has been considered. Up until fairly recently, it was being occupied as sort of a guardian-type scheme in flatted accommodation. There's nothing to say that the building couldn't be appropriately converted into suitable flats. There's nothing to say that it couldn't go back to a single dwelling. There is similarly nothing to say that a smaller type of use, even potentially, dare I say, office accommodation, because we're all getting inundated with office accommodation given that work from home. Something with a lesser traffic impact is the big issue here. Burton Hole Lane is just not suitable for this sort of development. And certainly the Ridgeway can't take the additional traffic, and that's the key issue for local residents. So as far as use of the nursery, the last application that was refused that went to appeal, the inspector agreed that the use of the nursery was acceptable on this site. So we've got that. And also I know that our children's services or education service support this application. Sorry, Councillor, I don't think the inspector did agree that the nursery use was acceptable. What he said is that in principle it could be, but actually the functional impact on the greenbelt was unacceptable. The extension to the property was unacceptable. The use of the nursery, he said, was acceptable, although the number of children being for it at that stage was too much. But he did also conclude in that officer's report that the heritage test, in the heritage test example, the applicant had not demonstrated that this was the optimal use of the building. So there's two different tests. The test of whether the principle of the use of the building is acceptable, that's your own local plan policy, and ticking the necessary boxes associated with that. Then you've got secondary elements coming into play, which is your heritage test, which your officer's report doesn't address on the optimal use. And they're two distinctly different tests, I'm afraid, Councillor. OK, thank you. No further questions for you. Thank you very much. And we now have the ward councillor, Councillor Lashinsky to speak. And again, councillor, you know the procedure. Introduce yourself, you have three minutes to speak, and you'll be given a warning when you have a minute left. Thank you. OK, Councillor Val Lashinsky, Mill Hill councillor, thank you very much. Right, we're good to go. OK. Right, background here. About a year ago, Mill Hill councillors were asked by some desperate residents for help with parking and highways issues in the area. There were new contractors working at the Ridgeway View site then, and they started parking around the Ridgeway and Burton Hole Lane, adding to the already existing congestion problems. Reaching the far end of Burton Hole Lane to access the very popular garden centre, Finchley Nurseries, the farm, Burton Hole Farm, and also the old Camdenians Clubhouse had become increasingly difficult. Residents of Burton Hole Lane and all of the adjoining roads were having difficulty caused by delays, being blocked in, and there were serious safety concerns. And along the Ridgeway itself, long queues of traffic were building up, seriously delaying the 240 bus journey. In fact, a 240 bus was actually stuck for several hours because of the traffic congestion until an incident unit arrived to free it. For those of you less familiar with the Ridgeway, we have Belmont Junior School, the Grimsdale Nursery, Belmont Farm Nursery, Mill Hill School, St Vincent's Nursery and Primary School. We have five schools delivering and collecting pupils at peak times. And also, we have the Ridgeway Views development. We have Millbrook Park, and we're currently waiting for a major development for a retirement complex to start building. This may well be one of the busiest roads in the borough. Mill Hill Council has then held meetings with senior highways officers who then undertook site surveys, traffic surveys, and consultation with residents to look at ways to improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety. It was agreed that the only possible solution was to install yellow lines along the Burton Hole Lane to restrict daytime parking and additional yellow lines along the two sides of the Fur Island Triangle and the Ridgeway. This wasn't considered lightly, but it was considered necessary for traffic flow and pedestrian safety. So this has led to the improved situation that we have at the moment. So it's hard for us to imagine how an additional 80 cars would be driving up the narrowed fork from the Ridgeway next to the huge Barrett development every day and then finding themselves unable to stop anywhere near Fur Island. And if that meant stopping for the length of time required to take children and babies out of car seats and hand them over safely to the nursery staff, the risks from obstructions or accidents are unimaginable. It's simply inconceivable to me that this could be considered an acceptable site for a nursery for babies and children to arrive by car to a site where there's nowhere safe to park. All of the work the councillors have done and the measures introduced by experienced highways officers to ensure smooth traffic flows and improve public safety will be put at risk by an additional estimated, and I think this is from the figures, 35,000 car trips converging around this tiny triangle of green belt land. Thank you. Thank you. 35,000 car trips per year? I think it's actually more than that. I think Mr. Springthorpe might be able to correct me on that. But if you take the fact that there are going to be 80 movements each morning and afternoon and you multiply that by five days a week and then you multiply that by 52 weeks a year minus weekends, that's what it comes out to. It's astonishing. Okay. I mean, clearly from what you've all said, it's the traffic... It's a highways and safety issue, both for the current residents and any future residents. And I hope that I've addressed the fact that there are already four nurseries along this road. There is no shortage. I think I have a lot of questions about this to the applicants and to the officers. Any further questions? Can you explain in more detail some of the factors that have led to parking difficulties along the Ridway in recent years, recent months even? It's a very big development. The decision by Barrett's that when people were buying the flats, I believe they later found that if they did want a parking space, there'd be a fee of approximately £25,000. This clearly hasn't been taken up very widely. So there is a desperate need for people around the new development to find somewhere to park, and there isn't anywhere. And we've been very busy, I'm afraid, for safety reasons, putting double yellow lines to simply allow the traffic to keep moving. So it was partly that. And then it was made worse by some of the later fit contractors moving in. Some of the original Barrett contractors actually had space on their own site. When the second fit people were coming in, they were just parking the whole length of Burton Hall Lane on both sides. Sorry, this development, are you talking about Millbrook Park? No, I'm talking about Ridgeway Views, which is immediately adjacent to the item we're talking about tonight. And how big is that? We are talking about this application tonight, not about the effect of other ones. So it's the additional that this one might make. Yes, sorry. Did I not answer that? Mr. Culloch? Yeah, I don't know, if someone can point it out on the map, you'll see where the Ridgeway Views developed. It used to be the public health laboratory, which was sold to Barrett's, and it's now a very large housing estate. Although the main central building, which had been originally intended for sale as two- and three-bedroom flats, has recently been changed, a change of use for a retirement complex. So the whole of the main building now is for retirees. But that, yeah, that is a separate application and place. Councillor Roberts, do you want to say? Would you not consider that a green space like this, with a whole selection of mature trees, and a building waiting to be in some sort of beneficial use for local community, should be considered for this sort of application? It's adding to the community. We don't have a shortage of nurseries on the Bridgeway. We have five schools collecting and delivering at peak times every morning along that one road. I'd be very happy to see it reused for residential purposes or some other purpose. But we have two triangles of this, and the whole of the road going down Burton Hill, which all have double yellow lines on now. And if this plan, which is part of the plan, to have a kind of carriage drive entry doesn't work, and there are no spaces to park on any of those roads of the triangle, if you see it in that design, including the Ridgeway itself, which makes the fourth part. So the Ridgeway, both triangles of Burton Hill Lane, and the whole length of Burton Hill Lane going down to the farm, is now yellow lined. And given the potential use as a nursery, the exit hours are unlikely to impact upon traffic, because the time school that the nursery is discharging its children will not be a peak time for traffic on the Ridgeway. I'm not sure that's correct, Councillor. I think... No, no, it's an all-day nursery for people who are going to work, so I'll be dropping them off at seven, eight o'clock in the morning, and picking them up at six o'clock in the evening, yeah. I believe there are flexible times, but I think the main times would be the normal commuting hours. I think, if I'm correct, there's an additional charge for parents who want to have extended days, like from seven o'clock in the morning. So not everyone would take up that option, presumably. So it would be normal school times, along with the other five schools. I think this is something we'll clarify about the management of the traffic and the hours with the applicant. Yeah. That's okay. Councillor Simberg. Val, you've explained about the impact the nursery will have on traffic along the Ridgeway, and we'll clarify the times with the applicant shortly. Could you just, from your own opinion within the area, having been a ward councillor, that site obviously hasn't been developed in many, many years. It's been left to just fall apart. What would be suitable, do you think, to local residents there? Because of the access, I don't necessarily see it as a community asset, but I'm sure it would serve very nicely as a residential development. Because then you'd have parking on site, and you wouldn't have the same problems that we're facing at the moment. But it's not, the application is not for that, unfortunately. We're only considering the change of use for an asset. Yeah, yeah. Okay, thank you very much, Councillor. Thanks. And now we have the agent for the applicant, Rhys Harris. Thank you, Claire. Hello. Thank you. And again, if you can introduce yourself, you'll have three minutes to speak, and you'll be giving a warning when you have a minute left. You've heard some of the questions that we may be asking, so you can address those. Thank you, Chair, and good evening, Councillors. My name is Rhys Harris, and I am speaking on behalf of Boys and Girls Nursery as their planning advisor. John and Natasha from the nursery are with us this evening, too. The application will provide an 80-place children's nursery in an area of considerable need, as identified by the applicant's nursery need assessment. The National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities to give great weight to the creation of early years facilities, and to take a proactive approach in helping increase supply. As of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., 52-week-a-year service, the nursery's offer provides greater choice for local people, and is a contrast to the term-time-only nurseries operating in the area. Barnet Council's Early Years Team support the application and the new childcare provision in the Mill Hill area to support local families. Importantly, the nursery has been within walking distance of emerging residential developments nearby, including Millbrook Park and Ridgeway Views. The scheme complies with greenbelt policy, as the proposed extension is, by definition, a proportionate addition and will not cause substantial harm to the openness of the greenbelt. It also meets the definition of greybelt, which further confirms this is appropriate development on the greenbelt. The change of use of the site to a community facility is supported by your officers, the Council's local plan and the draft local plan, whereby the loss of residential use is permitted for a local facility where there is demand and that demand cannot be met elsewhere. The need, plus the lack of alternative other sites, has been robustly demonstrated by the application and is supported by your officers. The change of use also ensures that the locally listed building, which is in need of restoration, will be refurbished and brought back into a viable use. The heritage benefits are supported by officers. The scheme has been designed to integrate with its setting. Only one low-quality Category U tree, with a life expectancy of less than 10 years, is proposed to be removed. This will be more than mitigated by the planting of 17 new trees. Barnet Highway supports the provision of car parking spaces for drop-offs and collections within the site, which is calculated to be more than sufficient to meet the identified demand. The nursery does not operate like a school, with strict start and end times, meaning parents can and will drop off and pick up children flexibly. The officer report notes that great weight should be given to the creation of this early years facility in an area of established need, alongside the considerable list of planning benefits, including bringing an underutilised, locally listed building that is falling into disrepair back into an optimal viable use, whilst at the same time enhancing the building's heritage and wider landscape. The creation of a proportionate and sensitively designed extension to enable the creation of 22 full-time local jobs, including apprentice and student training. And importantly, the provision of 18 nursery places to support the borough's parents and cater for the growing demand in the area. The application is recommended by your officers for approval, and we therefore ask members to support the reuse, refurbishment and extension of the building to provide a family-run community facility. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. We have heard from the objectives and from the councillor a lot about the need for a nursery, but that is really up to the applicant to make sure they can provide that need. But the main concern seems to be about the effect on parking and traffic around there. So, we have been shown that there is an out-drop-off area. I wonder if you could further elaborate on the parking arrangements and what the nurse will be doing to ensure that there is no stress on parking in the area from parents coming to drop-off and pick up their children. Thank you, Chair. If it is allowed, would I possibly be able to invite my colleague Nathan Hanks, who represents TPA, the transport consultant, to come to the table? Yes, just that particular question. Yes, thank you. He will better be able to respond to transport related questions. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you. Good evening. So, as I say, if you could just expand on the arrangements for parking to make sure that people are not parking and causing problems in the local area. The eight parking spaces on site, what we've done in supporting the application is surveyed other nurseries in similar locations. Sorry, we've surveyed other nurseries in similar locations to look at the profile of arrival throughout the day, and we've looked at typical drop-off times how long it takes to drop off to work out how many spaces are needed. On the basis of that evidence, it shows that eight spaces is actually far more than is needed. We've got enough spaces to allow for drop-off to take twice as long as anticipated. We've also assumed a worst case of two-thirds of parents driving and only a third walking, whereas local census data shows that only 47 percent of people drive. So, we've got a very robust situation which shows, as I agree with your highway officers, that there will be more than enough parking on site to pick up and drop off. So, there's absolutely no need for parents to stop on street, and as you've heard, there are extensive parking restrictions in the area as well. But, fundamentally, there's more than adequate parking provided on site for all pick-up and drop-off activity, and that will be spread out across the day because parents can – it's not – there may be a lot of nurseries locally, but they only operate like schools. That's why there's chaos on the road, potentially at school, pick-up time and drop-off time, because they all have to arrive at the same time. And most of them locally don't have on-site parking for drop-off, pick-up, which is why we're providing on-site drop-off and pick-up here to avoid those issues. So, it's all within the site. So, are there peak times for dropping off and picking up? Well, the peak is between 7am and 10am, really, because parents, especially with working from home these days, people have very different hours. So, they will flex when they pick-up and drop-off children, if that ability is given to them as it is by this type of nursery. And, in the applicant's other nurseries, is this similar? Absolutely. This is how they operate. It's, if you like, a very modern nursery system that cases for working parents who, you know, often – some go into work very early, some work from home and might drop-off when everything gets a bit quiet after 9 o'clock in the morning. It gives that flexibility, and it spreads out your peaks. Unlike school, your nursery is linked to schools, which tend to open at 9am, and you've got to get there at quarter two, that sort of thing. It's not that. And, I think, the planning inspector that considered the previous scheme here assumed it would operate like that, and that's one of his concerns, I think, or where that came from. Unfortunately, we weren't given the opportunity to discuss that. Thank you. Any other questions on the parking? I have several questions on the parking. Oh, sorry. He points to me, eh? Given the location that we're talking about, this is not conceivable, indeed. Highly likely that many parents would seek to walk their children to that school, and therefore the traffic thing is an isolated point that is not relevant to this location. Absolutely. There's a lot of chimney pots, if you like, around the site, and a lot of people can walk to the site. In fact, that's one of the reasons there's a parking management plan proposed with ongoing monitoring, so that if we find there's too much parking for drop-off and pick-up on site, we can either reduce the parking overall, or we can reallocate some of those to some staff parking. However, the council and the applicant agree. And on traffic impact, just to confirm you mentioned traffic impacts, I'll answer that as well if that's okay. So, we undertook, we commissioned traffic surveys of traffic all around the sites and the nearest junctions. We then undertook a capacity analysis for all the junctions in industry standard methods, which showed that there'll be a negligible impact on traffic, hardly any additional queuing. And because officers knew that this was going to be contentious, given the previous refusal mentions traffic impact, we also then did a sensitivity test, where we added 20% to the background traffic levels that were surveyed, and said, what would the impact be then? And the impact was still very low, and not enough for officers to consider there was any issue. Absolutely, using all the usual methods that we are required to use for traffic impact analysis. Councillor Simberg on parking. I have several questions actually. On site, there's eight spaces on site. Yes. How many members of staff have you got? 22 full-time members of staff. Okay. I'm assuming that members of staff are expected to arrive before the children. Yes, generally they are. So, where would they park? Before you answer that. So, when I say where would they park, assuming you want the children to arrive safely, therefore use the drop-off points. So, there's two points to that. Where would the staff park, allowing the children to be dropped off safely inside, which would obviously be the ideal solution, thereby stopping any service traffic? So, staff won't be allowed to park on site. It will be for pick-up and drop-off, unless in the future there's a survey at the site which shows through the parking management plan that there's too much pick-up and drop-off. So, where would staff park? So, the idea, and in terms of the national planning policy framework, it says, from a transport perspective, we should have a vision-led approach. So, we, and sustainability is key. We should be encouraging people to use public transport to walk, et cetera. So, the idea is that staff will not drive, whereas Barnet have removed a lot of parking from the streets around the site, put in extensive parking restrictions. So, combining that with not providing staff parking on site is all about encouraging staff to use sustainable transport, and the recruitment will be as local as far as possible. And that means we're following all the policy leads to try and encourage staff, almost force staff not to drive. And that encourages sustainability, healthier living, and that is where the policy requires us to go. So, this is part question, part statement, but, you know, I mean, I admire anyone trying to uphold the London plan and to encourage people to use public transport. Knowing Mill Hill, the way I know Mill Hill, apart from being a ward counsellor and living in Mill Hill for 38 years, this is the statement bit. Now, nobody in Mill Hill walks their children to nurseries. I have three grandchildren living in the area and using nurses in the area. And my children, unfortunately, don't live in the area after nurses, they have to drive. Sorry, Castle Simberg, it's just questions on the arrangements for parking. Yeah, okay, I get that. But, okay, so the question is, you know, knowing the ridgeway, the congestion on the ridgeway, parking is, this is going to increase parking on the ridgeway, which is going to have an adverse effect to the businesses and to residents on the ridgeway, which do not currently have enough parking. So, walking to the nursery is great if you live in ridgeway views, but the demographics of ridgeway views, and obviously, Marstead Living, which is the over 65s, are not going to use the nursery. Yeah, I think you're making comments now, rather than just questions about parking. One statement. A question. You mentioned you carried out a survey. Where was that survey? The surveys were on the two junctions between Burton Hull Lane and the ridgeway, and of all the traffic passing along the ridgeway along Burton Hull Lane, and so each of those three junctions, if you like, the corner of Burton Hull and Burton Hull. And when was that? When, just, I don't know exactly when it was in the lead-up to the planning application being submitted. Parking? No, thank you very much. Any further questions to the agent generally on the application? Thank you both very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Right, so now returning to questions to the officer. We had comments from the objectors about, because this is basically a change of use application, there have been no concerns about the actual changes to the building. It's about the change of use, the concerns are. So I wonder if you could comment a bit more on the need for a nursery, on how we look upon the need for a nursery in this situation, the need for a change of use. Well, the Council's Annual Child Care Survey Assessment 2024, in that it does say, Asset Borough, there is no immediate concern regarding sufficiency, although there is continued future focus on supporting the full implementation of the early years' entitlement for working families in September 2025. Like Councillor Roberts was alluding to, there is the need to consider the expansion of childcare services down the line, and in doing that, or as part of this application, the early years' team had been consulted, and they were supportive of the institution being open to provide towards that. Yeah, I mean, that comes from the 2024 assessment itself. I mean, I don't know what else to add about that. We've asked the right people in the Council, they said they support the need, there's a strategic objective in the relevant policy document, to provide for that. How much should we take any consideration of the need for a nursery in this place into account, rather than just, this is a change of use, and if the applicant can use it as a nursery, that's fine, it's not with that particular planning. Well, no, it is a relevant part of the application, because it involves the loss of residential use. Or one other thing I would say, so in applications that are subject to SIL payments, that are targeted towards infrastructure investment, they don't provide in themselves the means to expend that money. So taking money in order to make provision down the line for services to support additional residents in a particular area, or in the borough as a whole, doesn't in and of itself make that happen on the ground. And then there's the issue about the ownership of land, presumably that's the surrounding bit that's going to be made into pavement and crossings that they're talking about. Yes. Is that a particular concern? No, it's not uncommon in terms of the way that we approach applications. So this is the site location plan on the screen. The ownership certificate identifies certificate A, and that relates to the land that's within the red line site, and that is consistent. So in this application, like an old number of applications, it includes planning obligations to deliver off-site infrastructure works, highway works, and is subject to conditions that the use can't be instituted unless and until they deliver specifically the additional crossover to enable the carriage driveway. So if the concern is that the use is instituted without the proper arrangements being in place, then that would be a breach of planning control. So it effectively couldn't happen or shouldn't happen or would be enforceable. And it also enables then if there are, as far as I'm aware, the highway authority believe that they have the right to carry out those works. But if there is a civil action pending outside of the application process to determine the rights over that land, then the condition ensures that the harmful element of the development in terms of highway impact couldn't begin unless and until they deliver the infrastructure which has been identified. Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Barnes, Councillor Kallick and Councillor Roberts. I wanted to ask if you agreed with the appraisal that for this site to be classed as greybelt, it did need to be a demonstrable unmet need or whether you had another interpretation of that. No, that is a requirement in order to be greybelt. But in any event, it's not a disproportionate addition to the existing building. And so it's not inappropriate development. But the operational development is not inappropriate, even if it was just greenbelt. And so in a sense, it's a moot point. And the change of use is not considered in and of itself to affect the openness of the greenbelt. And so, again, that's subject to one of the exemptions set out in the MPPF. Yes. So either way, you know, either you give greater enough weight to the need to consider that it's greybelt, but either way, it passes the greenbelt test. So, sorry, just to check. So you're saying you don't think it has to be designated as greybelt for this development to go ahead? Yes. For it to be acceptable in terms of greenbelt policy, yes. Correct. Councillor Roberts. I just want to clarify, going back to the appeal decision and the first of it, was the reduction in the number of the intake of the school from, or the nursery rather, from 100 down to 80? Does that essentially meet the requirements? Well, the decision of the inspector doesn't dictate that as a requirement. There's not a requirement of the appeal decision that they go away and think again and come back with another proposal. But the inference is that a lesser number of children would address the impacts that the appeal inspector had identified in respect of the number of people that were proposed under that original planning application. Well, the planning officers consider that it does. It addresses the harm. Obviously, you can decide whether or not you think that that is a sufficient reduction in overall numbers, but that's what's set out in the recommendation. Yeah, correct. Councillor Kallick, you're next, and then Councillor Littenberg. Thank you. There was, it's not directly concerning this application, as this application is, but there was a suggestion that this property could be used for other purposes, i.e. conversion to flats. Now, if I understand it, this is locally listed. And if it is, is it suitable to be converted into flats? The conversion to flats in this instance would not be consistent with the principles set out under policy HAUO3 of the adoption version of the new local plan, because the PTAL rating is too low. It's lower than the threshold that is set out for the residential, or for the conversion of larger homes. So, I suspect there may be policy issues why it may not be approved. I mean, whether or not you could physically configure the space to form flats, I don't, I mean, I don't see why you couldn't do that, but that's not the only concern behind choosing to bring that form of development forward. Mr Thunberg. Sorry to go back on one of the points you made, I just need a bit more clarification. And this idea of ownership is niggling me. Can you, so if, just to clarify, if there was a walkway put all around the site, and the owners don't legally own that site, what's the implication to the owner and to the council? Well, the offsite highway works are within the remit of the highway authority. So, what matters from the planning point of view is that if their delivery, or if the successful operation, well, that's not the right way of putting it, if potential harm from a planning point of view would be, could be mitigated, but it's contingent upon those works, then it is necessary only that it provides that those works are carried out before the use is instituted. So, in a sense, what I'm saying is that it's not a relevant consideration in this particular instance, because either they deliver it or they don't, and if there's an argument to be had amongst the parties involved in that, that's a matter outside of the planning application. Thank you. The officer's recommendation is for approval. All those in favour of approval? There's three. And those for refusal? Or those against approval? We've got to go first. One. One not voting? One not voting. So, that application is approved. Thank you. So, if those here for that application can move outside as quietly as possible, so they can continue with the agenda. And we will move on to East Finchley one. High Road East Finchley. Now, this application, we've got items seven and eight that has to do with this. Although we will need to vote on them separately, they will be presented and the speakers, hopefully, are planning to speak on them both together. I was not proposing to give you three minutes on each of these, but three minutes, three minutes for them both together. We're looking at them both together. We'll be voting on them separately, if that makes sense. So, yeah, officers now on the High Road East Finchley. Good evening, committee. This proposal is for the installation of an electrical vehicle charging point unit with double-sided LCD screen, Feeder Pillar, and Associated Electrical Connection Works. The proposal is made up of two applications, one for the charging point and one for advertising consent. I will be presenting both applications together, but they will be voted on separately. So, here we have a location plan and the aerial view of where the charging point will be installed. And here we have some site photos showing the buildings outside which the charging point will be implemented. And here, again, we have an aerial view, a closer aerial view of that. And here we have the existing plan. The unit will be on the High Road between Leicester Road and Huntington Road. If you look at the proposed plan, you can see that the units won't be on the pavement, but it will be on a build-out from the pavement. So, it won't actually take up any space on the pavement, but it will be within a parking area, so it will not obstruct the flow of traffic. This is the design, the cabinet design. And here we have an example of one that was recently installed in Cricker Woods on a build-out, so that you can see what it will look like. And it has four protective bollards around it, and again, it's in an existing parking bay. The immediate setting benefits from a commercial character, and therefore it's appropriate for a charging point. It supports Barnett's Sustainability Action Plan. Highways Authority sustains no objection, and the application is therefore recommended for approval. Any questions? Thank you. We have two speakers, Mary Hodbin and Roger Chapman, on which order you wish to speak in. Thank you, Mary. I believe you're speaking on behalf of the Finchery Society. So, if you could... You know the procedure... He has a face with a speech bubble coming out of it, that's it. So, I've got six minutes, correct? No. As I say, I hope you will agree that you have three minutes on them both. And can I take them together? You have three minutes each? Yes. We're taking them both together? So, I get six minutes? Six minutes between two speakers? No, no. Three minutes for each application. It's already been confirmed to me that there should be three minutes on each application for each speaker. So, that's six minutes for me and six minutes for me. If that was... I wrote in an R specifically. If that was confirmed to you, that's fine. If you need... Are you going to speak for six minutes altogether on them both, or do you want to take both applications separately then? No, no. No, what I'm saying is I'll take both together. I mean, I'll probably go over three minutes is the point. Okay, that's fine. If we take both together and you go a bit over three minutes, we'll allow that. Okay, thank you. Six minutes. So, we'll still give you a minute's warning at the end of the three minutes, and if you go along with that, that'll be acceptable. Okay? Okay, thank you. I'm Mary Hogben from the Finchley Society. I've lived in East Finchley for many years and know this area extremely well. Page 19 of TFL London Electric Vehicle Charging Point Guidance states, EV charging bays should not be introduced in locations where they will reduce curbside access for essential servicing activity of nearby buildings. That's common sense. Probably the reason why in Australia, as seen on Jolt websites, they are installed in car parts. But this is East Finchley, and on the busy A1000, and whoever chose this site did not know the high street, understand how the youth theatre functions, the numbers of students that can be outside, and the need for drop off for the less able, nor did they take into account of the busy grocery shop next door which uses the parking bay to service the shop. The applicant in their design and access statement said that they comply with TFL, but they have since dismissed the safety requirements of TFL as advisory only, and it seems our highways department has done that too. A risky strategy. Anyone trying to use the charger has to step into the oncoming traffic to use the pay point, which does not comply with TFL safety requirements for EV chargers. There should be a 500mm buffer zone between the parking point and the traffic. The guidelines on safe use for wheelchair users have also been ignored. The character of our compact town centre, a largely intact Edwardian development with many buildings of architectural merit, both nationally and locally listed, is slowly being harmed by these large advertising screens. We already have six, and we cannot absorb any more. Okay. East Finchley residents are proud of their high street, and the town team are working hard with the council to make the street seem more pleasant and user-friendly, thus supporting independent traders to ensure the high street thrives. It has been proven beyond doubt that increased footfall arising from more pleasant and pedestrian-friendly streets creates a more vibrant and healthy high street. These units can only have the opposite effect. These two applications, one for the two structures and one for the advertising, are both primarily a major street advertising project with an EV charging point tacked on the side. East Finchley town centre already has more advertising than it should. These large units are counter to policy on advertising. They will cause unacceptable harm to the character and amenity of the town centre. They do not enhance the heritage assets of the high street. They are unnecessarily large for an EV charging point. They detract from the amenity of the street scene and add to the clutter already in the high street that we would like to reduce, and they will cause a physical and visual obstruction, including light pollution. In other words, they do not comply with policy CDH09 of the new London Local Plan adopted last week, I believe. Charging units should be positioned in an optimal place for use and not dictated by advertising positions, which would be a dangerous distraction to drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Permissions for these units should be refused. Further north, there is a parade of shops with a very wide pavement outside the character area, who might well welcome these and could be a safer location. There is a conflict between the planning system, which is promoting car-free living, where the access to public transport is good, and the siting of EV infrastructure on the road. So there is a conflict between that and the planning system, and with the siting of EV infrastructure on the road to serve flat owners above the shops. This was reinforced by the recent inspector ruling on proposals for 138th High Road in November 2024. Therefore, it is not logical to say, as the applicant does, that the numerous flats above the shops will need access to charging, as they are not being encouraged to have a car, electric or otherwise. The neighbouring roads have discrete EV charging facilities. There is a point outside UAE, and the EV team are rolling out more across the area. There are high-speed charging points at the station, the Five Bells pub, and just south along the A1000, and indeed a JOLT unit installed opposite. We could ask that the Council pause the JOLT rollout and reconsider the locations of these units in relation to the whole EV charging programme. Rather than the congested town centres, they would be more appropriate in supermarket and shopping centre car pots, where there are shoppers arriving by car, and also large organisations who might like to advertise their goods that are being sold inside. It looks as if the current high street locations are not picking up the advertising, and certainly our local traders would not be able to afford the advertising, thus not benefiting from them at all, nor providing any revenue for the Council. We note with concern that a JOLT unit in North Finchley has been wrapped in a layer of dark blue material, transforming it into a static advertising display. This is in breach of the planning approval, so therefore, for all approvals going forward, a condition needs to be attached to prevent this happening. So, just as JOLT seems to be indifferent to the safety requirements of transport for London, it ignores the conditions of the planning approvals. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Councillor Barnes? Sorry, you just made reference to something being wrapped around and being contravening the planning. Could you explain that a little bit more? Yeah, there is a JOLT in existence in North Finchley, which in the last few days has been covered in a blue sheet with a static advertising on it, and it covers the perforations at the bottom, contravenes its planning approval that it had. So, clearly, if you're going to approve any in the future, you need to make sure that they do stick with the as-approved drawings and don't start fiddling around with them and making them different. You know, the planning application approval... Right, okay, I understand what you're saying now. Thank you. Yes, I'm not sure at the moment we're considering this one, not what may or is happening to other ones in the future, as you know. Councillor Kallick? Sorry, although my colleague understood that, I just want a little bit of clarification. Yeah, that's... Right, so this one that we're talking about has been wrapped in a film, and a static advertising, i.e., a post has been put on it, on the outside. So it's not actually... Yeah, it could well be. It's not actually functioning as basically... Yeah, as an advertising screen that rotates on different adverts. Is that what you're saying? I think that's what's happening. I mean, what we're asking for here is for this application, should you choose to approve it, you need to put conditions on to make sure that JOLT do what they say they're going to do, or that it's approved, because they seem to be quite keen to disregard these things. Sorry, my colleague... I think, yeah, as I look at that, I mean, it's quite clear in the papers, because, you know, exactly what this will look like, be made of, and be used for. So we'll ask a clarification that it will be conditioned. I just wanted to clarify, this installation is not going to be on the pavement. It is in the road. So it will not change the situation in terms of people accessing any of the buildings, that I'd be the shop or the children's centre, whatever. They will not be altered in any way, because the installation is on the road, not on the pavement. Actually, it will impact both the shop and the potentially youth theatre, because they require... Because if somebody's parked, that obstructs the parking bay, the build-out, and there will be car parked possibly charging, which means that should the youth theatre need to pull in and offload their children, which they do, because they bring along children who have access issues. And the shop, you know, when he goes off at 3 o'clock in the morning to buy his bed, and he comes back to try and park to offload his goods, and they use that. It's a very busy, busy shop. They use that parking space for servicing their shop, so they won't be able to do that as easily. There is the obstruction in the middle of the parking bay, which has got the jolt on it, and possibly somebody parking up and charging. Could they use the pavement? No, they couldn't use the pavement, because the pavement's not wide enough. So they never could have used the pavement. Councillor Simberg. Is your objection to where the jolt is going to be situated, or is it to the actual point of having a charger at all? In this instance, it's to the location. There are better locations up the road. We would prefer not to see the advertising. We're quite happy to see charging points. But if we had to have them, this is not the location for it. This is clearly not the location for it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mary. Now I have Roger Chapman. Thank you. And again, Roger, you're expecting to address both these? That's it. You're expecting to have up to six minutes, are you, to address both these? I don't think I'll take six minutes, but I'll see how I get on. Right. There's three minutes on each of them if you want to extend a bit further. As I say, you've been here before, so you know that you introduced yourself. You have three minutes to speak. We'll give you a warning. Thank you. You have one minute left. If you go over a little bit longer, that's fine. Okay, thanks. Okay, my name is Roger Chapman. I'm a member of East Finchie Town Team, which is a post-COVID organisation. It's established organisations within East Finchie. It includes the Archer Newspaper, Phoenix Cinema, East Finchie Open Artists, and East Finchie Community Trust. We work in conjunction with Barnet Council and have delivered five activities over the period 2022-23. We continue to do work. We share goals with the council about increasing town centre footfall, improving the attractiveness of a higher road through planting and other activities. We're also looking at proposals for a new town square. We've been active in doing works around London Festival of Architecture in 2023-24. We're putting proposals forward for 2025. We support the Barnet Corporate Plan about caring for people, our place and our planet, particularly the call for safe and attractive neighbourhoods and town centres. The proposal here, and one issue I would take up with the officer's report, is where it talks about this is a secondary function of advertising. Primarily about electric vehicle charging. In our view, this is exactly the opposite. It's primarily an advertising panel with a secondary function of an electric vehicle charging. We certainly support electrical vehicle charging points for our number and residential areas. But this particular one, we feel is inappropriate in both size and scale in relation to the street scene. Many professionals who have put objections into this, including architects and planners, of which I count myself, would disagree with the officer's recommendation. It's appropriate to be factored through it's not. Policy CDH-09 on advertisements talks about adverts being sensitively designed. We do not think it is sensitively designed. This is a substantial monumental block of metal and results in visual clutter, which is something we're trying to avoid. Already within this area, there are seven signs, or this will be the seventh sign of this size within the High Road. This particular one will bring in one new monumental sign, four bollards, a feeder pillar. Already within 50 metres, there are two lampposts, four bike racks, a bench, another bollard, the parking street sign and a disused parking meter. It is cluttered already, and this is just making it substantially worse. Mary's mentioned about Tony's Continental, established in 1971 as a local independent business. They're fully against it. They see it as detrimental to their long-established business, and I think we're trying to support local businesses like this and shouldn't be undermining them. Likewise, the Fincher Youth Theatre, a London Borough of Barnet organisation, have objected to this, because they cater for many young people, often with physical and special educational needs. They will be affected because of the impact on drop-off points and delivery and so on. Overall, we don't think this is effectively the wrong location for this site. We're not against electrical vehicle charging points, far from it, but this is the wrong site. There are other alternatives, and we'd be happy to talk to the applicants about what they might be. Thank you. Questions? I'd just like to ask you to expand a little bit on the use of the Fincher Youth Theatre. You're talking about – I mean, we've been advised that this will not affect access to that. But you're talking about dropping off children with special needs, physical disabilities and so on. So I wonder if you could explain a little bit about how this, especially being built up into the road, will impact on that. Yes, certainly. If you look at the comments that were made on the planning application, there is in fact one from the manager of the Fincher Youth Theatre, who makes these points about the centre is already operating under space constraints. They are concerned about loss of access to pavement and pathway currently adjacent. Not only because – and I know this is on a build-out – but the point is a lot of parents will drop off and pick up children at the moment from that location, because they do often come in wheelchairs and have other special educational needs, because this is partly what Fincher Youth Theatre does. It provides activities and so on for many of those impacted upon our community. So I think it's overall – it's that issue about potentially giving safety concerns, but also just generally dropping on and off of people to the Fincher Youth Theatre, combined also with the fact that if you want one location in East Fincher Town Centre, which this is not a good place to do – this is it. I think you mentioned that the position of the advertising, but the advertising there is there to subsidise the cost of the EVs, which they do on a national basis. Do you not consider that a reasonable reason for having the advertising there? It is there to make this EV facility available to all. I think it can have it accessible for all. I don't necessarily accept that it has to be through advertising. This may be a particular model which has been chosen, but that is a choice. But again, the point about this is you're already introducing clutter to the area. You've bought in – there's already six of these size advertising units within that area. You're bringing in a seventh. Where does it stop? You know, it's sort of – this is just – this is an approach to sort of providing services. Often I know hardstrap councils have to do these sort of things, but what I would say on this is this is not the right location for this specific one. And I said we will happily talk to the JOLT representatives about alternative sites within that area. If there's no further questions, thank you very much. Sorry? Oh, sorry, Colin. Sorry, you said there are six advertising platforms already. Yes, not all JOLT. Some are just stand alone sort of – Stand alone, okay. And how many actual JOLT – This would be the second one. This would be the second – on the same side of the road? No, on the other side of the road, but there's already on this side of the road, just about 100 yards further down, there's two existing EV charges which don't have advertising with them. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Now I have the agent, Patrick Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. I think you've been here before, so I know that if you turn the microphone and introduce yourself, you'll have three minutes to speak. A little bit longer, because we're looking at both of them, but not too much longer, I hope. No, no, thank you. And you'll be giving a warning when you haven't left. Thank you, Chair, and good evening, Councillors. My name is Patrick Thomas, and I'm the Planning Manager at JOLT. Before I discuss the application before you tonight, I'd like to give you a brief update on JOLT's progress in the borough. We currently have 42 installed chargers, and in January alone there are nearly 12,000 charging sessions delivering over 1.1 million miles of travel powered by renewable energy. Our average charge time has increased to 64 minutes, meaning a JOLT charger is in use for around 10 hours each day, demonstrating both strong demand and the vital role these chargers play in supporting EV adoption. The application before you has undergone thorough scrutiny, not just by JOLT, but by four Barnet Council departments and independent road safety experts. Before submitting any planning application, we collaborate with multiple Barnet Council departments to carefully assess the suitability of proposed locations. Once an application is submitted, it goes through a full consultation process. In this case, following engagement with ward counsellors and local stakeholders, the right decision was made to relocate the charger from the footpath onto a build-out within the car parking bay, ensuring minimal impact on pedestrians and footpath users. I've personally met with both Kemi at the Youth Centre and Chris at Tony's Continental, and both have welcomed this relocation. I understand that some concerns have been raised about road safety, and I'd like to address these directly. The site has been reviewed three separate times by professional highways officers at Barnet Council, all of whom concluded that the development presents no road safety risks. Additionally, an independent road safety assessment reached the same conclusion. To be absolutely clear, JOLT charging cables will be positioned kerbside, meaning customers will be on the footpath when using the charger. While the paid terminal is on the roadside, data from recent transactions shows that only 17 out of the last 1,000 charges used the terminal. The vast majority of JOLT customers use the app, as it offers 15 minutes of free charging and a more convenient payment method. Since launching, JOLT has facilitated over 80,000 charging sessions, with no reported road safety incidents. Finally, I'd like to thank officers for their thorough assessment and collaboration throughout this process. I hope councillors will support the officers' recommendation and approve this application. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I'd like to ask a question first before I come to the others. As I said, I am an East Finchley councillor. You said that consultation had taken place with the ward councillors. The ward councillors were not consulted about the positioning of any of these charges. Councillor Mitra wrote in to planning officers regarding... Yes, he wrote in, but you didn't consult with her about selecting the positioning of them. A section 17 notice was displayed on the site prior to the... That's not consulting with councillors before you decide on where they're going to be. So there wasn't any consultation with local councillors or local organisations. Well, I disagree because the section 17 notice is a consultation process that the councillor was made aware of and as a direct result of the representations made by councillor... Yes, that's the consultation after you've decided where this is going to be positioned. There was no consultation when you were looking at an area to look at the best places for positioning, was there? The consultation happens with about four different Barnet Council departments. We work with highways, town centres, streets and the planning department. So what I would say is that before we get to this position tonight, we've looked at hundreds of sites across the borough, many of which have been discounted. So a consultation does take place. Well, I might disagree with that, but yes, I hear what you're saying. OK. Any other questions? Councillor Roberts? Just wanted to check, you don't consider this installation to be excessive given the area of that part of the High Street? No, this part of the High Street, it's not in a conservation area. It's not next to a listed building or a locally listed building. And as said by one of the other people a moment ago, there are other advertising screens in the immediate vicinity. So we think it's entirely appropriate and agree with officers. OK, thank you. Zimberg? So again, just two points. Can you, I don't know if you've got the information in front of you, but can you tell me the exact date were you consulting all the councillors? No, we haven't, as I said before, a Section 17 notice was issued, put on the street prior to the planning. Councillor Mitra wrote to planning officers. We've responded to Councillor Mitra, Councillor Mitra raised concerns about the unit on the footpath. As a result of his email, we've also tried to engage with Councillor Mitra, and emails have been sent and we haven't received a response. But we did relocate the charger into the parking bay as a direct result of the comments made by Councillor Mitra. That was my second question, actually. Oh, sorry. No, it's fine, you answered it. So in terms of positioning on the, within the parking bays, is there any other suitable position in that high street to put this? As I sort of said before, before we even get to the meeting tonight, we work with a number of council departments for, and they all have slightly different requirements in planning, and highways, and town centres, and the streets team. JOLTS also have requirements, so this was considered the optimal location in this area, effectively. Any further questions? No, thank you very much. Any questions for the officers? I just have one. I'm just going to carry on with where we were left off. So the applicant's saying that a section 17 notice, my understanding of that, that goes on the lamppost. That's not, in my opinion, a consultation with world councillors. World councillor consultation would be an email, face-to-face, telephone, physically talking. Am I incorrect in thinking that? That was my thing, yeah. The consultation was a section 17 notice, which everybody saw at the same time as councillors. It wasn't specifically with councillors. It's not a, the pre-application engagement on the part of the application is not a statutory requirement. It doesn't, you know, it's good if they do it, and I'm not going to comment about the extent to which it was done, but for the purposes of the planning application, all the statutory requirements set out under the development management procedure order, and in our statement of community involvement, they've been adhered to. Yes, I mean, I'll respond to that. It may not be a statutory requirement, but considering that nearly all these applications are coming to committee to be decided, I think it may have avoided that if there had been a proper consultation with ward councillors in all wards before to discuss appropriate positions for these things rather than having to go through this rather tedious procedure with coming to committee all the time. Yes, it would avoid it. So, you know, I am an East Finchley ward councillor. I haven't made any comments on this so far. I've been listening to objections to a few people who are in flavour for different reasons and everything. But I must say at this stage that I do have great concerns, both with the position it is in, although apparently the consultation took place on that, and with it not being on the pavement. If it's going to be somewhere, it should be on the pavement. I don't like it being in the middle of the road. I think it does impede access. That part of the road is very heavily parked. There are no car parks in East Finch Street, so all parking for businesses and everything is on the streets. And it will affect parking there and make it much more difficult to park, much more hazardous to park there, and make it much more difficult, as we've heard, for people dropping off children and picking up children at the youth theatre, which is very highly used. So I am not in favour of this particular application. Further comments? The wiser will go to a vote. The officers are recommending approval of this application. All those in favour of approval? That's three. That's three. Two. So that application is approved. Oh, sorry. Yeah, sorry. Which application that was. So can we take the vote again, first of all, on the vote for the charging unit? Those in favour and against. So it's three, four, two against. That application is approved. And then for the advertising, those in favour, three and against, two. So both those applications are approved. And we move on to the next vote charging unit in Finchley Road. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. So this application is similar to the previous one. It's also for the Jolt electrical vehicle charging point. However, this is located in outside, outside 1095 to 1097 Finchley Road. And also this application, this proposal also has two separate applications. So one for the charging unit itself and the other one for the advertisement consent. But I'll present it in one go. However, councillors have to vote separately. So this is the site location plan and the aerial view. So we can see the site. It's near the junction with Hendon Park Road and Finchley Road. And here are some site photos showing the showing the existing parking space that the EV charging point is proposed to be serving. And that's the existing plan. And that's the existing plan. And that's the proposed plan showing the unit is proposed to be on the pavement. And although the unit is on the pavement, this is going to leave approximately four metres clear footway width between the back of the unit and the front of the shop. So this does comply with the TFL Street guidance, which recommends a clear pavement width of two metres for two wheelchairs to pass by at the same time. And that's the cabinet design. And there are several approvals. Previously, we have approved several similar EV charging points on Finchley Road. So for example, this one on Finchley Road. And given there is sufficient visual separation between each of the Jolt units. So we consider this is not going to create a street clutter. And it's not going to have a detrimental impact on the character or the street scene. Yeah, so yeah, and also this proposal supports the Barnet Sustainability Action Plan. And also the highways, the council's highways officer has no objection to it. So the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. All right, thank you. And we have two speakers on this one, Barry Siltsman and Michael Strom. Which order do you wish to speak in? So thank you. If you can turn the microphone on. There's a face with a speech. Can we get going out of it on the screen? That's it. You can hear me? That's on. So as with the previous one, you have three minutes because we're looking at both of these applications together. If you go over the three minutes, we'll allow you to speak a little bit longer to address the advertising as well as the EV charger. Does that make sense? That's fine. So if you can introduce yourself and you will then be given a warning when you have one minute left. Wonderful, thank you. Hello, my name is Michael Strom. I was born a couple of hundred metres away from this proposed advertising board. I married my wife, who lives also nearby, and we still live nearby. The shop that you see there is Moishers, which next door it is a butcher. These are both local specialist kosher shops. And there were 18 objections raised on this, which I think is quite unprecedented, from a large number of people who were very concerned that they won't be able to buy their essential goods, which can't be bought at a regular supermarket, and really are very worried, including the shop owners themselves, that parking and being able to pick up your family shop, which can't be done by hand, will be simply impossible. There's very limited parking in the area. In this particular stretch, it's vastly, vastly oversubscribed. If any of you care to visit on a Thursday or Friday, you'll find that all the parking spaces are at total capacity, with cars waiting to load up their shopping, their family shopping. And I appreciate there have been tens and maybe already hundreds of applications by Jolt, or they will be soon. I assume that everyone here doesn't intend this to be a rubber stamping exercise. And in particular, this case, you'll give careful consideration to our concerns. The lack of parking space, I think, is self-evident. I think with regards to the local immunity and the visual separation, I think Jolt, in their, you know, very wide-ranging expansion of this across Barnet, no doubt do their best to try to achieve that at every location. However, in this particular location, I'm afraid it just doesn't stack up. The officers' report mentions three curbside advertising screens nearby. However, these are all north of this site and span a stretch of road around 400 meters in length. That's three advertising boards 300 meters apart and further north. Had Jolt been more in its information that provided to the council, we discover, as I have, that these are the advertising hoardings in the immediate vicinity. So, the red box here is the proposed location. The highlighted yellow boxes are the existing advertising hoardings. Frankly, I mean, calling it Piccadilly Circus would be an exaggeration, of course, but this being suitable for residential High Street, a town centre of very beautiful character prior to this application, would be a crying shame. I just ask that councillors who previously abstained take a view, and take a view against this, and take into account the local community, and I'm sure you will hear the particular amenity that's being lost by this, and the real effect on the street scene, and the overabundance of advertising boards directly near this proposed location. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions? Yeah, I was just going to ask you, I mean, you showed us that, but it shows the other ones there, and we were shown a similar Jolt charger outside weight trays further down the road. So, what sort of impact has that had, do you think, on parking? I think that these things will inevitably take out parking spaces. I don't think that any of the previous approved Jolt chargers have been outside a local shop that carries specialist food that, you know, that the local community relies on, and I don't think any of the Jolt advertising boards were placed in such close proximity to three other advertising boards. I mean, there's a safety aspect as well, which many of the 18 objectors have mentioned due to the bus stop opposite, and driving down that road, I think could have been obvious from having seen this photo, means that you're very unlikely to be able to spot a pedestrian waiting to cross. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And again, if you can introduce yourself, then you have three minutes, you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left, and if you need to go over a bit more, because we're covering both applications, we'll allow that. I'm the owner and partner of Moshe's Food and Wine. I'm not a regular speaker, actually. I haven't spoken since Mapa Mitsu 28 years ago, but this is something really close to our heart and our livelihood and so on and so forth. As a business that has been servicing a local community for over 43 years and priding ourselves with providing a meticulously clean environment and aesthetically pleasing our market shop, enhancing a local area, this would have a devastating effect, adding to the difficult climate we are already in. We have taken a hit after hit over the years and fear this would result in nailing the coffin for the business. Whether it's been rising prices of which we've had to absorb by not being able to pass on to our customers, the rising electricity, which is circa £100,000 a year due to frozen products and fresh products that we provide for the community, wage increases, national insurance increases and continuous investment needed to stay relevant in this difficult challenge in the retail sector. As a family-run business of which all the shops along the parade are family-run businesses, we ourselves personally work up to 20 hours a day in order to mitigate further expenses. My parents who have been here for 43 years are having to increase their ready-burgeoning workload when they should be easing off for a little bit in their golden years. The majority of customers patronising these stores regularly are large families that cannot afford electrical cars at the current prices. The typical duration of these shopping trips along the parade are between 5 and 15 minutes, effectively resulting in a loss of between 30 to 60 customers a day. Whilst we understand the need for EV bays, and this is the future, a significant revenue stream for the Council, I urge you to strongly consider the outcome of such a proposal and work together beneficially for the shops, residents, general public customers, environment and the Council alike. By installing the charging point advertising screen at the end of the proposed bay, this would limit easier access to the parking and result in further obstruction to the main road. If you look over here in this diagram, you'll see the bay starts over there. Now customers and lorries delivering to all the local shops would generally cross up over here and then be able to park. Now if there's an advertising board at this location, sorry, the cars would have to come up alongside and reverse into the space on this extremely busy high road. On this basis, may I suggest as a win-win outcome to reconsider the moving of the EV bay outside Mercedes' garage or the accountancy firm further down, this is the Mercedes' garage, actually I took this picture today. It's generally not as busy, it's generally full but not as busy and a typical client that would go into a Mercedes would stay there for an hour, two hours or accountancy firm. There are currently two bays there and one of those bays are loading bay, either by adding an additional bay or by using one of the existing bays, it is a lovely uninterrupted area which would be a lot more suitable as Mercedes have an on-site parking and more affluent and captive audience for EVs, or by the accountancy firm which the typical stay is considerably longer, as I mentioned. Failing any of the above suggestions, and as a last resort, I recommend you consider adding a bay for the proposed EV site and move the phone box exchange and street light nearer to the corner. So, there's a 10-metre gap over here. A bay is typically between 4.5 and 5 metres, potentially that would allow space for another car as a last-case resort. And ample space 4.5 metres further towards the corner. Finally, I would like to point out, as a resident and business owner in the area, I am in contact with the wider public on a regular basis and can assure you this is a reflection of their view too. The local shops are the heartbeat of the high street and strongly feel that instead of actively working and helping promote business in the area, we are being hindered with very little consideration put into this application from the businesses and wider public's perspective, which is extremely concerning and disappointing. As a city hope we strongly reconsider these suggestions and refuse this application, a reapply or amend to one of that takes all the above concerns and suggestions into account. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. You're owning a shop, which you heard in the previous application about East Finishingly. That's also very close to a well-used local shop. So, similar to that. Were you consulted? We talked before about consultation. Were you consulted by the applicant before this application was put in? No. We received obviously a letter in the post with application, but no one has spoken to us, no one has consulted with us whether it will have an effect on us. But not prior consultation? Absolutely nothing. And not only that, I mean, our customers and people in the area are extremely concerned. They tried logging onto the ballot to write an objection. People have struggled. Many, many people. I would say well over 100 people have tried. It didn't bother venture. People are busy. They just don't. They give up. There's a significant amount of proposal. Yes. Okay, thank you. I hear what you're saying. Any further questions? Councillor Bellas and Councillor Roberts. Thank you. I just wondered if there are any parking restrictions in that area already? In what way, sorry? Any parking restrictions in terms of times and limits to how long? The times are from 9, there's a pay pay and display from 9 to 5.30 in the evening. On that stretch. Right, okay. Fine. Thank you. I just wondered, you may not be able to answer this, but do you have any idea what percentage of your current customers use electrically charged vehicles? And do you think that figure is going to grow or decrease in the coming years? I believe it's a minute amount. There's a minute amount of customers who have electric cars at the moment. Due to large families, they haven't got the finances to have these cars. Potentially, yes, in the future, I'm not sure people will change, but the infrastructure's not there yet. And I don't think by decreasing parking, by doing this, it's going to help us in any way. It's going to help any of the businesses. I think you'll see many shutting and many have shut over the years. And I think it's a critical, speaking to all the local business owners and businesses along the parade, it'll have a critical effect on their businesses due to the limit of parking. It's an extremely busy retail area. It's an extremely busy retail area, yes. It's an extremely busy retail area, yes. But at the moment, we're really far away from there, and should you need to do that, it'll be a lot more... Typically, when someone parks for an hour, a park will come with an electric car, they won't park for 15 minutes. The typical shop in these busy shops will be 5 to 15 minutes. So someone to park and leave an electric car there for an hour, an hour and a half, that would deter many, many people coming to the area due to not finding parking spaces. Should it be a little bit further outside the accountancy firm or a car sales where people stay potentially longer, that would make more sense. I just don't think there's any considerations we're taking in to the detriment of this potential proposal to our businesses. I think we need to provide the infrastructure for the businesses at the same time. Any further questions? No, thank you very much. Thank you. And then we have Patrick Thomas again. Oh sorry, we've got councillor, councillor Dean Cohen, ward councillor. Thank you Dean, again you know the procedure very well. Yeah, in a few times. You can introduce yourself, you have three minutes. I have three minutes. You can go over the three minutes if you need to address the advertising as well as the government. Thank you very much. Good evening colleagues. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I mean, my main point is actually what's actually mentioned on the last item as well. I raised, and all members, to be honest with you, should be aware of this and should be concerned for their own areas that they represent, and that is in terms of the lack of consultation. I came aware of this from the planning application, not from the plans to actually install the thing on the highway. You know, we all get concerned about disabled bays and all this sort of stuff, but not this. And this I've raised now, and I hope, but I think everyone needs to make a stand. And, you know, there was no consultation with ward members, unlike what was previously said by the applicant. There was no consultation with ward members. There was no consultation with outside the local shop other than the planning application. And I think that needs to change. That needs to change, and consultation needs to happen with ward members and directly affected businesses or residents, just like any other type of application on the highway, whether it's a crossover, whether it's a disabled bays. Those are all consulted with. My main concern is regarding the loss of parking. The loss of parking here, there is very limited parking. There is no side roads nearby in terms of this particular stretch of road. Yes, there are some, there are side roads further up and further down. But in this section, there is no real side roads. And therefore, the parking on street on the Finchery Road is very, very limited. Not enough to serve, and even less by putting in designated bays. And I say designated bays, because it doesn't actually mention it in the reports that they are designated. It says, it only mentions about the charging point. The other point I'd point out from this report is the main objections that have been raised here is regarding the loss of parking and the impact on business. And nowhere do I see in the report actually addressing that. I don't see anywhere in the report where it talks about or addresses the loss of parking for other cars other than EV. I'll pick up on the point that Councillor Roberts made to Mr. Zaltman before. And I think Mr. Zaltman has picked on it, but I'm not sure if Councillor Roberts picked up on it. The majority of, well not majority, but a large number of the customers that go to this particular shop and the surrounding shops, which are specialist shops for the local Jewish community, are people with large families who are driving seven-seaters plus, right? To get an electric seven-seater plus, I don't have to tell Councillor Roberts how much that costs. You're talking 70,000, 80,000 pounds a car, right? To get an electric seven-seater, seven-seater. So, as Mr. Zaltman said, I'm not sure they're quite there yet for that type of outlay. Obviously prices will come down, there will be more supply, but they're currently there. The other point I'll point out, and it comes back to the consultation, I believe there are better locations than this. I'm not against the advertising, I'm not against the charging, you know, I'm very for both of those things. But, I think the particular location they've chosen, where there is very limited parking for that particular parade, I think will have a massive impact on the businesses in that parade. And, as Mr. Zaltman said, it could be potentially outside Mercedes-Benz, where there is, you know, people are going in there for longer to buy their £80,000 Mercedes. And, I think there, I think, is much better. And, again, if consultation happened, could have had the discussions, I would have been aware, businesses would have been aware, why they can't have it there. But, I think, I think this at least should be, at the very least, be deferred until other locations are considered. Thank you. Any questions? I think we've probably covered quite a lot in previous questions. No questions. How can you miss me out? Everyone else has been asked questions. No questions to me? I think the question I was going to ask was, were you consulted? I gave the answer to that. But, no, I wasn't consulted. And, I think, again, I think that is, you know, as was said before, a lot of this could be solved by having that engagement. And, again, what I would like confirmation from, well, now you've asked that, and, again, it might address it, is whether these are designated bays, because some of the jolt bays are designated and some aren't. I think we'll be told that's a highway thing, it's not part of the application, but we'll ask that and clarify. No, but it should be, I understand, but it should be part of this application, because that is having the impact on the highway network, which is a planning consideration. Thank you very much. Okay, so now we come to Mr. Thomas, Patrick Thomas again, the applicant. And, again, you know, you have three minutes, just the same as before. I'll give you a warning when you've got one minute left. Thank you, Chair. Good evening again. I think, firstly, given the debate we've heard tonight, I think we want to be clear that, going forward, regarding consultation, that's something that Jolt will do on all future planning applications with the ward councillors and the local businesses. I think, perhaps previously, we've relied too much of our, you know, partnership with the council, but going forward, we will, I promise you, directly engage with ward councillors and local businesses. We may want to take you up on that. We'll be monitoring it. Please do. But, just before we discuss the merits of the application before you, I'd just like to give another update on Jolt's ongoing partnership with Barnet Council. To date, we've installed 42 chargers across the borough, with a further 14 in the pipeline, and six currently in planning. Our network is growing, and so is our positive impact. We have 5,000 customers, the majority of whom live and work in Barnet. Customer surveys showed that 63% of them use our chargers on a weekly basis, with 16% charging daily. Clear evidence that Jolt is becoming a vital part of the borough's green infrastructure. Our data also reveals that 80% of our customers spend locally while charging, directly boosting the high street and supporting the local economy. I have no doubt that a Jolt charger on Finchley Road will bring similar economic benefits to the area. Like all Jolt sites, this location has been rigorously assessed before reaching this stage. What councils may not be aware of is the extensive pre-application work involved. Dozens of potential sites are evaluated and dismissed before a planning application is ever submitted. Even after submission, some applications are withdrawn because they do not meet the council's criteria. This level of scrutiny ensures that only the most suitable sites move forward. I also want to clarify an important point. This application is for a charging unit only. There is no loss of a parking bay, as some objectors have claimed. Any future bay demarcation would be subject to a separate traffic management order consultation and is not a part of this application. Beyond providing essential EV infrastructure, Jolt is committed to investing in the local community. That's why we offer free advertising on our screens for local businesses and charities. If approved, businesses in the immediate area, including MOSHI's, will have the opportunity to benefit from this initiative. We are already supporting organisations such as the Arts Depot in North Finchley. We also support local independent businesses in Temple Fortune and Mill Hill. To quote a Barnet business owner who has advertised with us. Since advertising on Jolt screens, we've seen a big increase in business and football. We'd never have been able to afford this kind of advertising. Jolt's presence is really making a difference. Barnet Council has rightly set ambitious carbon reduction targets. And with 41% of emissions coming from transport, Jolt can play a key role in helping the borough achieve them. We hope councillors recognise that this application not only supports sustainability but also fosters local economic growth. We ask you to support the officer's recommendation for approval. Thank you for your time and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. You said you've already installed 42 charging points. There are two under consideration today. Correct. There are six in planning and 14 in the pipeline. How many in total will there be? Well, we're working with officers but we think around 80. 80 in total? Total. OK. The reason I ask that question is whether there is going to be any reasonable consultation in the future. So that's roughly four in each ward. Yeah. Do you have any information about the impact upon retailers when a charging point is installed near their premises? Yes. Well, we don't have research from retailers. We only have it from our own customers. Currently we do a survey every quarter and that reports that we've got 80% of our customers whilst they charge spend in the local area. So I don't have any data on individual retailers. I don't have any data on individual retailers. Does it have an application that they say they avoid the vehicles and that's being a retail application for most of them? Correct. Commence. Councillor Barnes. As we know the parking restrictions are not part of this application, but of the installed 42 that have been installed, how many of them have now got parking restrictions? I think it's eight that don't have parking restrictions. Can you say what those typically are? It's an electric vehicle charging only max day three hours is the restriction. I would also just add that most of the spaces before that have restrictions such as this one where it's a max day two hours paying display. Thank you. Councillor Simberg. Following on from that statement, so you've got 32 that have dedicated EV charging. How long after installing the EV charger do you apply for dedicated parking? I think in all honesty that's depended throughout the project that's been going on for almost a couple of years. I think to start with it was a quite considerable time period. Now, if we think it's right, it's closer to after we've got planning, it's the process we go through. But that's another consultation with the council. Is it your intention that every EV charger has a dedicated parking? Is that what the intention is, that they will have dedicated parking? Unless we were told otherwise. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any further questions for the officers? Otherwise, we will go to the vote on one. Councillor Simberg. Just regarding one of the statements up there said, say, dual functionality, it reduces street clutter. I can't see where it reduces street clutter and dual functionality. What does that mean? The unit combines the advertising function with the charging function. And they, although it's not directly a planning issue, they support each other. If they were to be brought forward separately, then you'd have more items of street furniture. Although I guess they wouldn't necessarily have to be immediately co-located. Is that why you're saying it reduces street clutter because it's one unit? Yeah, I think, yes. Although I think it might have been better articulated in this case as in not unduly increasing. Or not leading to an undue street clutter because of the total quantum of units within the visual associations. Okay. If there's no more, we will go to the vote. Again, two votes on this one. First, on the provision of the EV charger. The officers recommending approval. All those in favour? I'll have to go for that one. That's four in favour, against. One against. So those two applications are approved. And we now go on to the last item on the agenda. 23 Rabinhurst Avenue. 23 Rabinhurst Avenue. Thank you Chair. Good evening members. This item relates to 23 Rabinhurst Avenue. This item relates to 23 Rabinhurst Avenue in Hendon. And it's for a roof extension to provide. The last item on the agenda, 23 Rabinhurst Avenue. New office accommodation and counselling rooms at first floor level. Together with ancillary facilities. Thank you. Thank you Chair. Good evening members. This item relates to 23 Rabinhurst Avenue in Hendon. And it's for a roof extension to provide. New office accommodation and counselling rooms at first floor level. Together with ancillary facilities. The site is outlined in red. The area is predominantly residential in character. And bound by residential properties to three sides. The rear being a rear garden of a property fronting Brandon Grove. And this is an aerial view. So to the left hand side is Egerton Gardens. To the right is Somerset Road and Rabinhurst Avenue here. And to the north is the Brent Street Town Centre. A closer aerial image here. So as I said it's sort of adjacent to a number of residential properties. Along the flank here is a pedestrian footpath. As you can see here it's a single storey building. Dual pitch. Which in terms of its form and design. Does form a bit of an anomaly in the locality. Whereas the rest are sort of more traditional two storey dwelling houses. And these are some site photos. So that's the building here. The footpath along the flank. The rear elevation here with a lean-to that will be demolished. To make way for cycle storage and refuse storage. The existing ground floor footprint. So that's the office space currently used by the charity. For counselling purposes. The front and rear elevation. And then the two side elevations. The existing CGI's. And this is the proposed CGI's. So here you can see the roof extension that's being proposed. So it raises the roof by 1.5 metres in height. Entrance would be taken from the front here. The existing palace side fencing would be altered to close board fencing. With some soft landscaping at the front. And this is purely for comparative purposes. In terms of the enlargement proposed. So there was a previously refused scheme. Which is on the left hand side here. This was considered to be a top heavy development. With oversized dormers to both sides of the roof slope. And the current proposal change all to that. By keeping the form of the existing building. And simply increasing the scale modestly. The proposed ground floor plan. So an open plan layout for the office. To provide affordable and flexible workspace. And only internal connection to the first floor. So this is the proposed first floor. As a result of the roof extension. Roughly doubling in the floor space as existing. The proposed front and rear elevation. So as you can see the eaves height. Sits well below the neighbouring properties. To either side. And the ridge height. Although slightly taller. The roof slopes away from those properties. To mitigate any impact. And at the rear here. You can see the cycle storage. Single storage and refuge storage. Following the demolition. Of the small single storey lean to. These are the proposed side elevations. And section drawings. And you can make out here. That is the existing. Showing the existing roof form. And sort of where it's being raised. By 1.5 metres. And this demonstrates. That the roof lights. Would not allow sight lines. Into the neighbouring properties. So in terms of key considerations. Being an extension. To the existing office floor space. We consider it to be acceptable. Size. Scale and design. Would have an acceptable impact. On the host property. And surrounding character. In terms of impact. To neighbouring occupiers. Subject to restriction. For opening hours. As set out in the report. We do not consider. That would be. Sort of any. Increase. In terms of noise. And disturbance. As a result of the use. And in terms of highway. Impact. In order to ensure. That there wouldn't be increased. Parking demand. And undue parking pressure. Highways. Consider it acceptable. Subject to a section 106. Restricting parking permits. There is an addendum. To this item. So just to make members aware. So in conclusion. The application. Is recommended. For approval. Subject to conditions. And a completion. Of a section 106. Agreement. Thank you. Thank you. We don't have any. Objectives on this. We have. Councillor Conway. The ward councillor. Is not able to be here. But we should. Make a statement. That's going to be. Red forest. Fellow councillors. I apologize. I am not present tonight. But the dates of the meeting. Was changed. The site. We are discussing. Has always. And is still able. To apply. For parking permits. There has never been. Any complaints. About this. Or any issue. From either. The residents. Or from the council. While the office. Is now trying. To place the condition. Onto the property. This will make it. Much harder. Needed. For therapists. To be able. To work. From any charity. To the site. Secondly. There has never been. Any condition. In place. Regarding the time. The site. Can be used. Once again. There has never. Been. Any complaints. Of the site. Being used. In a way. Which disturbs. Anyone. Let alone. The local residents. Why then. Are we placing. A condition. On the site. As to when. It can be used. As all. Counselors. Will understand. Where they will not. Be seen. This is why. I please. Ask you. To get rid of. These conditions. As of them. In place. Many local. Families. Who need help. Will not be able. To receive it. Thank you. Thank you. And we have. The agent. Emily Benedict. Hello. Emily. You're. Well. Used. To this. Process. As you know. How to. Turn that on. Introduce yourself. Three minutes. And one minute. Warning. Thank you. Thank you. Chair. My name is Emily Benedict. I'm the agent. For this application. We are approaching. Members. Tonight. Officers. Recommendation. In fact. We are delighted. That officers. Are finally. Supporting. A proposal. On this site. Rather. We are appealing. To members. To vary. Or remove. The wording. Of the condition. And section 106. Agreement. For the reasons. Set out below. Condition 11. Part A. Restricts. The premises. Opening hours. For any new tenants. On Mondays. To Fridays. From 8am. The current. Operating hours. Are unrestricted. And the proposals. For an extension. To the existing building. It does not introduce. Any news. J. Counselling. Provides. Essential. Counselling. Services. For the Jewish community. At subsidised rates. Striving to keep families. And relationships. Together. And taking significant weight. Off council resources. Previous tenants. Have operated. In similar fields. To J. Counselling. Benefiting. From shared resource. And counselling rooms. Tenants. Will also be counselling. Organisations. And will require. The same. Opening hours. As J. Counselling. Restricting. The time. Of operation. Will reduce. The likelihood. Of the premises. Are likely to choose. Premises. With highly restrictive. Opening hours. When unrestricted. Premises. Is available. Elsewhere. If an organisation. Which offers. Counselling services. Is a future tenant. They do need to be able. To work around. Their clients times. Including evenings. And weekends. As J. Counselling. Is an orthodox. Jewish organisation. It's not open. On Saturdays. During the day. To continue. To use the premises. On a Saturday night. If they say wish. As they are currently. Able to do. However. Prospective tenants. May not be Jewish. And could require. Unrestricted access. On Saturdays. Turning to part B. Of the policy. All attendees. At the site. Including staff. And visitors. Simply put. It will be an invasion. Of counselling. Clients. Confidentiality. For J. Counselling. To list their names. And details. In a register. That is available. To review. And could be illegal. Even the trustees. Have no idea. Of their clients. Because confidentiality. Is. And must always. Be a priority. We respectfully. Request. This element. Of the condition. To be removed. In its entirety. Of the PZ. Parking permits. There are two reasons. Why the parking permits. Are needed. Firstly. They need to be able. To get parking permits. For visitors. Counseling clients. Sometimes. Have mobility issues. And would therefore. Need to be able. To park. As close as possible. To the building. Additionally. Therapists. Often work. In multiple locations. And need to be able. To move. Between sites quickly. In order to attract. The best therapist. They need to know. That they can park. Easily. If they are unable. To provide. Their services. In summary. We are proving. To members. To have a. Pragmatic approach. And amend. The wording. Condition. 11. And bury. The section. 106. Agreement. So. Thank you. So. Just to confirm. We have heard. From Councillor Conway. That. He has no objections. At all. To this. And feels. That it is. Used appropriately. At the moment. And will continue. To be used appropriately. But you and your clients. Are happy. To accept. The conditions. About parking. And about use. Of the premises. Are still part of. Of this. Application. We are. Happy. To accept. The majority. It's just. These two conditions. It's the condition. We get. Restricting. The hours. Of operation. As I've said. And. Having to keep. The record. Of attendees. That we're. Objecting to. Which is why. We wanted to have. This discussion. Amongst members. And also. At the moment. There are no. Restrictions. On who can apply. For parking permits. The paper. Permit. So they're. Able to put. A private. And put. In their cars. And we just. Want to ensure. That that can be. Maintained. As for the current status. So it's just. To have these. Discussions. Any further questions. Council Roberts. So. The hours. In which. This place. Is. Is. Eleven o'clock. Is that. Frequently. People are still there. At eleven o'clock. Or is it. Occasionally. I don't think. That. In reality. That they're. There till. Eleven o'clock. At night. I think. Often. There might be. Someone. That comes in. At say. Nine. Or. Ten o'clock. At night. Like. A few. There may be. A couple. Like. Two therapists. Maybe. Two or three therapists. That. Could be operating. Maybe. With a single person. Or maybe. Maybe. No. I would say. No. More than. Once a month. Probably. Less frequently. Than that. They may. Either have. Training services. That go on. An event. To kind of. Raise awareness. And raise a little bit. Of money. For it. I think. The other thing. To point in here. Is that. Because of. I know. Some of you. May remember. The last time. We came. To committee. For the HMO. Which was. Refused. That it's one of those. Charities. That originally. Was a counseling service. For a marriage. Counseling service. And has now. Expanded. Is where people. Are actively. Giving money to. Because it's not. People don't really. Want to admit. To using their services. So what they're. Really trying to do. Is provide. The supplementary. Income. That can enable them. To continue. To provide. These services. At this discounted. And affordable. Rate. That people can use. That's really. Like the purpose. The enabler. Of this. Proposal. That's the colleague. Um. On the. Uh. Question of. The. Therapists having. Um. Parking permits. Um. How many. Currently. Have parking permits. And how many. Are you proposing. Or. Are you expecting. To. Um. Need. In the future. If this. Um. Extension is. Uh. Goes ahead. As it is. Um. I think. It's just. Important. To clarify. That. It's not. The individual. Cars. Necessarily. That have. The permits. It's rather more like. The visitors permits. Where they'll get. A stack of. A hundred. Say they'll get. A stack of a hundred. That could last. Them. Three months. Or six months. That those. That need it. Can then park. In the locale. One. So. I think. It's. I think. It's hard. To say. Exactly. How many. Would be there. At any one time. Also. I think. The advantage. Of the paper. Tickets. Is that. If people. Are using them. On the same day. They can be shared. So that. They can last. Longer. And they won't. Have to renew. As quickly. But. Generally. Can't take place. You know. In. Open. Offices. Which is why. We've got. The therapy rooms. Upstairs. These. Hundred odd. Permits. In. In a tranche. Are they all. Used up. I mean. Is there no. Spare capacity. To give. To. The future tenants. To share with them. Well. I think. The problem. With the. Wording. The section. One. So. They currently. Are entitled. To them. And. They can last. As I say. They can last. Until. They need. To be. Renewed. But. It's taking. Away. That right. That right. That they have. At the moment. It takes. It. It takes. It. It takes. It. It takes. It takes. It. Oh okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions. Central. thank you thank you really yeah you can certainly ask a question to you chair so the application is recommended for approval subject to uh conditions and section 106 but the section 106 and the special conditions if i understand this are not currently in place so is there a way of amending the application to say that we can approve the application for uh the extension without any special condition as per the current status in other words no section 106 no restricted uh times i think yeah condition conway is asking for it yeah yeah basically yeah it's not for me to answer that i agree the motion and secondary re-amending the recommendation but you know just be careful about just removing the um uh the conditions you know you might then then all its restrictions go and and just in relation to the uh 106 uh it's not for me to make comment but of course disabled users are exempt in relation to that so it doesn't stop a disabled disabled uh sorry uh visitors would be would be absolutely able to still power i mean disabled visitors will probably have their own blue badge and maybe that sort of thing but what i'm saying so currently i don't understand it there are no uh section 106 restrictions and facilities open i don't know if there's you know probably you know flexible opening times are they the only conditions are there any others any others that that's correct yeah and the premise of these conditions is on the basis of the expansion of the site for additional floor space these will apply only to people more people using the office spaces rather than the service it's more people using it and the fact that we don't know who the additional or future occupies might be so part of the premise of expanding the floor spaces allow other businesses to operate there whilst the actual charity is operating there so you know the nature of their business might differ from the counseling use and therefore that could be noise intensive so the way that we've designed the condition that condition as is is to grant the opening hours for the existing charity as is but restrict any other businesses operating from there to normal office hours so it kind of satisfies the needs of the charity whilst ensuring that there's no sort of additional noise and disturbance to neighbors as a result of future occupants or other businesses operating there yeah i understand councillor councillor conway was saying there's no concerns at the moment and therefore this isn't necessary but you you think it may be to ameliorate some of the concerns raised by local people just for the new business coming in yeah that's probably not very clear bearing in mind the council conway doesn't seem to be clear on that nor does the applicant so if we could still propose that that's made clearer that the existing uh tenant or or applicant uh can keep their conditions as is maybe if they then sublet that's what we're worried about isn't it so could that be a condition yes i would refer members to condition 11 which sets out the opening hours and how we've sort of structured it so that it allows the existing charity to work at their existing operating hours but other businesses would be restricted and they can apply to vary the condition on a case-by-case basis going forward yeah so that could happen through an additional application so say there was an additional business there that had a similar sort of remit um then they could then apply to vary that condition and we could assess it as and when in that instance yeah can i propose to make it to that can we do that sorry happy with that do you want to have an amendment that is the condition as drafted so does it actually says so my computer's gone off um yes does it actually say that it's uh on a case-by-case basis it says um should only operate it's the hours that shall only operate except for jay counselling who have the existing hours uh so others not jay counselling will be eight to six monday to friday and they'll maintain a register of all attendees okay so the other point is is i think i think uh the applicant is correct a register or attendees i'm sure that is a data breach and there's a infringement there there is there is a sign that needs to be looked at but yeah i think that's councillor kelly um what are the current parking restrictions within those the two roads so they are uh it's in a cpz um so technically the existing premise is eligible for parking permits um the area is in a low peter which means it has low access to public transport so therefore it is anticipated that any expansion of the site might have an uplift in demand for car parking which could then have in turn knock-on effect in terms of existing parking pressures hence why we're trying to sort of restrict that and ensure that it doesn't have an unacceptable impact on the highway the planning obligation also refers only to the new arguments although i think you're right that could be maybe slightly clearer perhaps set out in the report but it can be uh i mean it will obviously have to be more robust when the lawyers get to work on the final text right colleagues it's five to ten so unless there's anything else urgent should we go to a vote so i'd still like to propose the amendment to uh with section 106 take that out i think that's restricted do you want to propose a separate motion as well in respect of the second part of condition 11 because we we didn't i mean we don't have an answer to that question as such like i don't know if it's a breach of gpdr rules section 116 i think could cause an issue regarding people visiting as you said said this they can't come on a public transport but they're not going to get a pass anyway there's nowhere to park if it's full they can't use a resident parts so i think that just alleviates that problem so i'd like to say that amend that we take the section one of sexual restriction out and with regards to gdpr can we that be referred to take that out i mean i think i think in terms of that aspect that there is possibly a way of navigating around it um the purposes of keeping the registers to be able to differentiate the different uh operators from the site um to ensure that they're actually uh according with the restrictions in terms of the opening hours so wouldn't necessarily need to detail the names of the people that are actually attending it could just be the business that they're that they're visiting yeah yeah i mean i think the idea is basically if someone complains that there's people there after 6 p.m but before 11 p.m that in order to enforce the condition so it's about the enforceability of the condition that the enforcement officer can attend the site and objectively identify the people who should could be there within the terms of the scope of the condition so it doesn't have to be necessarily the the name and address or anything like that of the people involved but the the recommendation i think jimmy can correct me if i'm wrong but the recommendation includes the scope for the final phrasing of the conditions to be agreed between the service director and the chairman after so um what it actually says under 11 subsection b doesn't necessarily have to be the final result but if you agree with the premise then we can make sure that that is agreed i agree with the premise of it as long as it's tweaked to to read correctly okay so if you're proposing the motion to do away with the parking permit restriction yeah um do we need someone to second the motion anyone want to want to hear that doesn't mean that it that doesn't mean that it passes you then have to vote right yeah okay so yeah we've got a couple of minutes to to go to the vote then there's anything else that we don't need to extend past 10 o'clock so if we can then go to the vote the officer's recommendation is to approve all those in favor of approval that's all this application is approved that's all this application is approved thank you it's just it's really deferred that one you know it wouldn't have finished no