Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Barnet Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Planning Committee - Tuesday 1st April, 2025 7.00 pm
April 1, 2025 View on council website Watch video of meetingTranscript
Transcript
Thank you, everybody. Thank you for attending this meeting of the Planning Committee. I'm Councillor Claire Farrier, and I'm chairing this Planning Committee. Thank you all very much for coming. I will first of all ask the members of the Committee to introduce themselves, followed by the Planning Officers, the Legal Officer and the Governance Officers. As I said, I'm Claire Farrier, I'm Councillor for East Finchley Ward, and I'm the Chair of the Committee. Councillor Roberts. I'm Councillor Tim Robertson, Underhill Ward. Councillor Richard Barnes, representing Barnet Vale Ward. Councillor Humayune Khalick, from Collindale South Ward. Councillor Joshua Conway, Hendon Ward. I'm I'm substituting for Councillor Elliot Simbach. Yeah. But I'm from A. Joabari Ward. Thank you. Tania Sarkozer, Principal Planning Officer. Tania Sarkozer, Principal Planning Officer. Heidi Erzger, Planning Manager. Leslie Felben, Planning Manager. Asha Chabaya, Planning Officer. Tina Faragey, Legal Officer. Salah Rida, Governance Officer. I hope you can all hear alright. Can everybody hear? Sometimes we have slight problems with the acoustics, so hopefully you can all hear this. We'll ask that you remain seating during the meeting unless you are called to the table to address the Committee. And please note that these meetings are recorded, as allowed for in law or by the Council. And by attending, either in person or for those who are attending online, you may be picked up on recordings. The Council recordings are covered by our privacy notice and you can find that on our website www.bonnet.gov.uk. The procedure is, for each application, the Planning Officer will present the application. Then each speaker will have three minutes to address the Committee. And the Governance Officer will let you know when there's one minute left. And the Committee will then have the opportunity to ask questions of any speakers and of the Officers. And then following discussions, we'll come to a decision which we will vote on and we'll let you know what the decision is. So there's been a slight change on the agenda. If you look at the agenda, item 10 on the agenda for seven Gloucester Gardens, we're now moving up to follow item 7. They're both in Charles Hill Ward and have similar speakers and similar concerns. So those are going to follow each other. There's no other changes. And we'll move on with the agenda as it is to look at the minutes of the last meeting. I hope members have seen the minutes. Can you agree the minutes? There's been one slight change to the minutes. Do you want to... One small amendment to the previous minutes under item 12. Fair Island Ridgeway. The only amendment is that the penultimate paragraph to read the agent addressed the Committee for the application. Subject to that amendment. Members are happy to approve the minutes. All right, then. Absence of members. Councillor Simberg is not here. As Councillor Grung said, he's substituting for Councillor Simberg. Do any members have any declarations of interest on the items this evening? No. The monitoring officer hasn't granted any dispensations. An addendum has been circulated that I hope everybody has seen and is published for everybody to see. And the officers will mention what's in the additional things that are in the agenda when it comes to each item. We'll go on to the first application, number six on the agenda, which is White Ways. Good evening, everyone. An application has been submitted at White Ways Hillview Gardens for removal of a roof to provide additional storing at second and third floor level to facilitate nine number self-contained flats, part single, part two-storey side extension to facilitate a stairway. The site location plan. An aerial image. This is the site. Site photographs. This is taken from an aerial image of the rear, showing context with number 11 White Ways and Spectrum House. Site photos taken from the street. This is our site. Spectrum House. Number 11 White Ways. Site photos taken from within the site. This is the front. This shows where the second two-storey extension with an undercroft will be created and its context with the adjacent building. Photographs taken from the rear, showing the rear elevation. White Ways, number 11, and the garages here. Existing ground and first floor plan. There are no changes proposed to these floors. Existing second floor, which is the roof, which will be replaced with a two-storey extension. Proposed ground floor. No changes. Proposed first floor layout. No changes. Proposed second floor, which replaces the roof. Proposed third floor layout. This is the extension on the side. Part two-storey and part single. Proposed roof plan. Existing elevations. The front and the rear. Existing section plans. The proposed elevations. The front and the rear. city tiles. How about Mucahtar to quickly see a half, beautiful scenery. This is sectors boundaries. Of course, on없eless. Alarm past that is so much located, maybe no? Beautiful. This is the part. This is for your length. Because of novo work. This also shows the two-storey side extension with a part single. Proposed elevations. This is not the front and the rear. This is a mistake. It's a side. This is section plans. Existing CGI's from the front. proposed CGI's from the front. It shows you the contacts with Spectrum House and White Ways, number 11. Existing CGI's from the side. Proposed CGI's from the side. No changes are proposed to the ground at first floor. There are 24 parking spaces which are available on site, including 10 number dedicated parking spaces which are proposed for the 9 units. Refuse bins to be stored to the rear and pulled to the front on collection days. The proposed extensions and layout of the dwelling are acceptable in terms of its impact on neighbouring occupiers. The proposal, given its context with Spectrum House and a adjacent building at 11 to 14 right ways, is acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the existing building. Concerns have been raised in respect of this single storey and part single storey, part two storey extension and its impact on the garden of the adjacent building, that's number 11. In response, we have to note that this is a two storey side, part single and part two storey. It does not project beyond the rear wall nor does it go beyond the ridge of number 11 whiteways. This property out here is on a much higher level than the host side. In addition, there is a sufficient amount of greenery and vegetation along the side between the boundaries. This side here. Whilst we do, whilst there will be some form of overshadowing, we consider that the site is already overshadowed a bit due to the existing trees and the plantations on the side. And if there is any form of overshadowing, it will be minimal. Therefore, there is no concerns with regards to impact of loss of light to this side. Thank you. We have two speakers on this, Shimon Simon and either Ruben Brune or Joe Henry. So two of those who are going to speak, I'm not sure which order you would like to speak in. So why don't you mind if Kay was here, just passing that. Thank you. If you can turn the microphone on, there's a face with a speaking symbol there. That's it. Can you hear me okay? Yeah. That's fine. As I say, you have three minutes to speak and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Ruben Brune. I speak on behalf of the leaseholders of the block of flats. Most of this speech has been written by Joe Henry, a planning consultant who was formerly Director of Planning at Barnet Council. In respect of the proposal's impact on the character and appearance of the locality, the proposed additional floors will add considerable bulk to the existing building to the extent that the proposed building would dominate the neighbouring building to the north. The proposed access would result in nine additional households and their visitors walking past very close to the habitable room windows of the ground floor flat at the end of the building. This is demonstrated by the image I provided with the yellow circle. At present, there's no reason for any occupiers or visitors of the existing dwellings to walk past close to these windows. The number of residents and visitors associated with the proposed nine flats walking past close to these windows would result in a severe loss of privacy to this ground floor flat. The existing drawings do not provide a first floor plan. Even a set updated to the planning portal as recently as last Thursday still does not show this. Instead, the applicant has supplied a block plan and not a first floor plan. This is very important because the Council has adopted a sustainable and designed supplementary planning document require noise-generating rooms like living rooms and bathrooms not be located above neighbours' bedrooms. Without this information, decision-makers cannot make an adequate assessment. I own an upstairs flat. If you look at the first page of the handout, I've put the layout side-by-side with the proposed what's going to be above it. I can confirm the proposed layout will result in an inappropriate stacking. The bathroom stairwells and kitchen of the proposed flat 7 in yellow are above bedrooms of the existing flat 8. Additionally, the bathroom of proposed flat 5, orange, is above the existing bedroom 2 of flat 8. There will be parts of four households above this one flat number 8. As the applicant hasn't submitted a first floor plan, we cannot tell what impact on other flats are. They are likely to be similar and their significance. The proposal would lead to a significant loss of light to the rear garden of the neighbouring building to the north. The proposed building is due south of this neighbouring garden, so will have a significant impact in terms of loss of light. It should be noted that the application documents do not include a light report to demonstrate no harm to this neighbouring garden. The first floor flat number 10 has a side window at first floor level. This is shown on page 1 of the handout. The proposed access stairs, that two-storey side extension, will completely and unacceptably block this window. The window is shown in that image. The planning report fails to take into account that garage numbers 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 have been sold off on long leases separately to what the freehold owns. In the planning report, the agent has confirmed all garage leases are owned by the freehold. This is not true. Additionally, the bin store does not work where it is shown. It has been moved to the front of the building and that is where some more proposed parking spaces are. This is a poorly planned application. It is incomplete. It is inaccurate. It does not comply with the Council's adopted sustainable and design supplementary planning document. There is no other fitting outcome than for this to be refused this evening. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any questions? Do you feel that the freeholders who are presenting this has tried to work with the leaseholders at all? No. There was one consultation meeting which was held on a rainy Sunday morning around the back of the flats and that was it. I think the layout is a big deal because these developments can be planned well and the fact that with all the information they put together and CGI's, they haven't shown the first floor plan and the stacking impact, it really is as if they are trying to hide something. The building itself is not a particularly strong building. So you have, it has got timber floors between the ground and first floor, there are often noise complaints between ground and first floor flats and it doesn't, it is just unfathomable to have four households above one flat. You have got I think two lots of stairwells, bathrooms and kitchens over bedrooms. It just, it doesn't make any sense. Right, so no more questions, thank you very much. Thank you. And the next speaker, is that Mr. Simon? Again, if you would turn the microphone on, that's it and you'll have three minutes to speak and be given a warning when you have one minute left. Thanks. I'll try not to restate things that everybody said but all the other holders, including myself, agree with everything that has been said. So the character of the building is going to drastically change. It's going to place an unfair burden on the current residents. The estate comprises 14 Masonettes. They're all, they've all got their own. Yeah, yeah, sure. Is that better? So the character of building is going to drastically change. It's going to place an unfair burden on the residents. The estate comprises 14 Masonettes. They're all self enclosed. They've all got their own access. There are no common parts apart from a garden area that has been managed by verbal agreement of the leaseholders. We're going to, with this development, have a number of common parts. It will require a green roof, requiring excessive maintenance that itself has no access. And there'll be a movement of close to 30 bins each week that's going to be required, according to this plan, especially when there's no access to move 30 bins every week. Especially when there's no access to move 30 bins every week. Especially where they're supposed to be parking space. Especially where they're supposed to be parking space. So we're going to start from a garden area that has been managed by verbal agreement of the leaseholders. We're going to, with this development, have a number of common parts. It will require a green roof, requiring excessive maintenance that itself has no access. And there'll be a movement of close to 30 bins each week that's going to be required, according to this plan. Especially when there's no access to move 30 bins every week. Especially where they're supposed to be parking spaces. So, as said, the bins are going to need considerable moving. There is no management company in place. There are no provisions in the current leases of the leaseholders to pay for management companies. Again, that is done verbally, with verbal agreement of all the 14 leaseholders. We've got exacerbated by the fact that the freeholder is in breach of the lease on numerous occasions. Currently, the building is uninsured, and it should be. Currently, the insurance itself currently costs £750 per flat due to numerous substance issues, both by the Garrida side at number one and by the two blocks there. There were major substance issues, I think, over five since 1980. So, I can imagine that with the addition of two more stories, it's going to cause major issues. And again, a flat is costing £750 to insure in this property already. In addition, the walkway is a major invasion of privacy. So, you've got an exposed walkway by a window at 11 whiteways. So, imagine a bunch of people trying to come upstairs with prams and shopping right outside your window. I appreciate there's a slither of land that you've mentioned as a garden, but really that's not going to make a huge amount of difference. Sure. Thank you. There's also a blockage at nine whiteways, so you've blocked effectively creating a walkway right outside someone's door. A glass door, I shouldn't add, so that's going to cause huge issues of light. Access to the garages that are currently in place and owned by leaseholders is going to be further exacerbated by the curtailment of the extra bulk. Common Garden, the freeholders saying that they're already adding, adds existing no value because it currently is a garden area. It's going to cause, there's a large drop between a garden area for children and the next, so the rest of the estate. There's no access to the roof provided on, despite the fact there's a seed and roof that's been put forward. It's going to cause a huge amount of maintenance costs on the currently solders. And while the current flats benefit from front and rear fire escapes, I can't see any enough access for fire escapes for the other additional flats. And I think also that the current fire escape access will be minimized if you add those two. Thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions? Councillor Roberts. Thank you. You mentioned that the two surveys done about subsidence on the building. And what was the finding on those? Well, there was a huge payout and that's why the insurance costs are over 12, I think 10,000 pounds, 10,800 pounds. I'll give you exact, exact amounts. But there was a major substance claim in 1980, 1991. I think there were five further claims. I'm not sure if they've proceeded because, again, the property is not managed by a managing agent. But yeah, as you can imagine, a flat is costing 750 pounds to insure. So there was substantial subsidence to affect that. And we cannot go to any other insurer. There's no other insurer but RSA is going to insure us. And has any really new work been done to correct that shortcoming? So remedial work was done, I think, in 1990. And they shored up the two blocks. Obviously, now with the addition of a staircase right in that section, that could cause a major problem. The lease, the freeholder also, I think two or three years ago, said there was major issues of heave and therefore removed a number of the trees between the two blocks. So I can imagine there'd be potential of more issues of subsidence should an extra two storeys be added. You're not aware of any substance issue following that? So my flat has definitely moved. I haven't got pictures of that. The hope is that it's no longer moving. And so nothing's happened in the last two or three years. But again, the insurers are very worried that there is subsidence and no other insurer will insure us, apart from RSA, with a massive cost to insure. Thank you. Thank you. Am I right in saying that your current insurance is 750 pounds? So current insurance for each flat was 750 pounds? Yes. Yes. Have you had any quotes from your insurers should this further development go ahead? In other words, is it going to have any substantial effect on you? So I would imagine that the development value of those buildings is going to increase, you know, extensively and therefore the insurance will likely to go up. We've not received quotes. I've not gone to another insurer for quotes. It's the freeholders responsibility to insure and for the leaseholders to reimburse. And there's been huge issues between the leaseholder and the freeholder in the ability to obtain alternative quotes. And also to make sure that the freeholder pays the insurance on time and that we reimburse as a result. Thank you. It would have been helpful to have had some sort of comparison because it would be good to know whether it would have an actual effect on you. Obviously you can't answer that. I appreciate that. I obviously can't get you quotes, but yeah. No, I understand. Thank you. Okay. Can... Right. So any questions or comments to the officers? I wonder if the officers could comment on the issue that was raised about stacking, about room stacking not being appropriate, and also about lack of fire escapes. If you could comment on those. Oh, sorry. Michael. Oh, I was always forgetting the agent. Sorry. Yeah. I've got Michael Kutra. I'm very sorry for forgetting you. Yeah. If you turn the microphone on, you'll want to have three minutes. You'll be given a warning. No, they all had three minutes. They were given a warning when they had a minute left. They had three minutes, then they answered questions, which you'll be able to do as well. If you turn the microphone on, thank you, then you'll have three minutes. You'll be given a warning when you have a minute left. Thank you. Our site at White Ways is a fairly unique one. The site is distinctly separate from the surrounding streets, and its unique charm will remain unchanged with the new proposal. Early engagements with the public and the planning department were had prior to submission. Our scheme has directly responded to the concerns raised by the public and facilitated all planning policy requirements. Addressing the material considerations for the scheme, I would like to start with car parking. I can confirm that this development does not have the capacity to impact existing on-parking and street car parking demand, as all required parking provisions are fully allocated off streets. Further assurance has been provided by the highways department, who have confirmed that our proposal exceeds the number of parking spaces required. Off-ship parking will be managed through the existing parking permit system that is in place as these parking spaces are existing. Addressing refuge storage and collection, we have worked with the refuge team, who have confirmed that our proposal to maintain the existing refuge storage points in the rear car park is acceptable and sufficient for all flats. Bin collections will be managed by the maintenance team, where bins will be taken to the front of the day of the collection and returned back to the refuge storage points on the same day. Addressing residential space standards, I can confirm that each flat is fully compliant with policy and that all flats maintain their own private amenity space with no dependence on existing provisions. Addressing privacy, I can confirm that there is no impact. Addressing privacy, I can confirm that there is no impact. The proposed flats are set beyond the critical dimensions stipulated for opposing windows, thus presenting no capacity for impact. The issue of room stacking has been raised. However, the traditional approach of stacking rooms, placing bedrooms above bedrooms and kitchens above kitchens, does not resolve the intention of stacking, which is noise impact. Even with this method, one can still have noisy neighbours, which is the real issue at hand. The planning officer has robustly addressed this under planning condition, requiring evidence of a Part E compliance pre-completion sound report prior to occupation. Please note that the application site is adjacent to the recent development Spectrum House, a block comprising of 32 flats that is physically closer to the public highway. The proposed finishes to whiteways takes cues from Spectrum House, though even with the addition of two more floors, Spectrum House will remain the dominant structure in the street scene. Lastly, I acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the potential impact of shadow cast on an isolated part of a garden area. Though ample amenity is provided to all across the plot, we have responded to these recent concerns and commissioned a technical daylight report to demonstrate compliance with BRE guidelines. Though this report has not been requested or is required to address policy, I have the report available and will be happy to circulate it should committee members require it to review in their considerations. Addressing a few minor points, I note that Mr Simon has raised a comment that there is no committee or management company at whiteways. However, I have been advised by the freeholders that Mr Simon is actually on the management team with Mr Finer. And other points, matters addressing subsidence that were identified 22 years ago were repaired 22 years ago or some point after that. And the matter of structural integrity will be addressed under statutory requirements under the Building Act and is not a matter for consideration under the Southern Country Planning Act. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Councillor Roberts? I just wanted to check with you. Are there any plans for further checks on subsidence or are you now satisfied that that issue is of the past? Of course, the matter of structural integrity is our obligation under the Building Act itself. So, prior to any works, the foundations will be checked and any issues found will be remedied. Be it not remedied, the building itself will be upgraded where required, if required, to facilitate the structure that's being put upon it. And therefore, there is absolutely no risk or even possibility of the additional floors compromising the structure below because we are obligated under the Building Act to ensure that all measures required to comply with the current regulations are in place. Okay. No, Councillor Conway. How come you haven't shown the first floor plan? The first floor plan isn't necessarily a requirement because there's no changes being made to that floor. You'll find many applications that you'll be considering done on multiple buildings where other areas that are not demised are part of the proposed development, they're not being impacted, not shown. But the reason why this is being raised is over a matter of stacking, and the matter of stacking is already being addressed under condition on the recommendation. So, there is no alteration or impact to the first floor that's not shown. The planning department also did not find a need to request it from us, mainly because there is no impact to it. This is an airspace development. The side extension is not impacting anything on the first floor. It's not being changed. All right. Thank you very much. So, go back to the offices now. We've heard something about stacking. If you could comment on stacking a bit more and the lack of fire escapes we're asked about as well. Okay. The objector has referred to stacking, which basically is a document called the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD. Under the noise design principle, it states internally the layout can help mitigate the impact of noise using the following measures, and one of the measures is stacking. It's not a requirement, but it says that it can help mitigate. Whilst we would prefer to have stacking, that would be ideal, but due to the housing mix that we request, it's not possible every time. That's one of the reasons why we have a condition in place for pre-completion test certificates, sound test certificates, to ensure that there is no noise travelling between flats. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Can you show us the CGI site, please? This is the existing, yeah? Yeah. And the proposed. This is the proposed. Okay. What is the distance between those two properties on the right-hand side? Yeah. This is approximately five metres. Okay. Five metres? Yeah, approximately. So that is a... It could be even more because it spays out, so it's narrow in the front and then it opens out at the back towards the rear. So the extension, so basically the two-storey extension, it sits within the site and the first, sorry, the single storey sits on the higher level. It creates an undercroft, so it's still within, you know, the site that you see. It's not on the higher level, so it needs a single storey that's on a higher level here. So that's within a permittable distance. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. You can see it from here. Sorry. Because we're coming right here. Next. Just two questions. How is it allowed to have a window looking into number 11's window without that apparently affecting them in any way? Is this the one you're talking about? That one looking into number 11? Yes. So it serves a staircase. It can be obscured glazed. It serves a staircase, so the stairs go through that building, that extension. I understand that, but people go up the staircase in order to get their flat. There's no other way of getting to that flat. Yeah, we can obscured glaze that window. Sorry? We can obscured glaze that window. It doesn't say that in... I don't think it says that in the report that it's glazed? No. It doesn't seem to show that at all. It says it's not glazed and it's looking straight into number 11's flat, which the... people have to go up to. So that... How that could be allowed without affecting them. Putting aside the fact that actually they're causing the people to walk past the flat right over here. So they're losing their privacy, which is about a metre and a half away from that window. So are you talking about this window here? That one over there? Yeah. And the side one? Yeah. How is that not losing their privacy and why are we not worried about that? So basically, with regards to the side window, if members want, we can obscured glaze it. We can put in a condition to obscured glaze the side window. With respect to the front, if you go on side, you'll see that there isn't any boundary treatment at the moment. So anybody can walk in and out. But at the moment it's self-contained. So why would someone need to go past someone else's flat when they can get into there? They don't need to. They don't need to go. Because there are three different ways of access. You can go in from the side. Okay? You can see the single-storey element over here. This is where the front entrance is to get into the flats above. So they don't need to pass and go, you know, all the way around all these other... Sorry, where's the other way if we don't go past? This is the single-storey element, which is on the higher ground. That is the entrance into the two-storey extension, which is the stairways. I'll show you the section, which is a little more. On CGI 02 and CGI 04, it's quite clear, especially if we're taking into account that we're trying to sell it, that there's enough parking, which I have major questions on. But if they're parking, they're not parking on the higher level because there's no way to park. No. So the parking is basically to the front, along here. So then they would be walking straight past there to go into... Yeah, but there are parking. There are cars parking at the moment, but it's managed, so not everyone can park. It's not gated, so anybody can walk along here. And people who have permits are allowed to park in the front. So what is the distance from that path to that person's window going into their bedroom lounge? So the front is around 2 meters, approximately 2 meters to the pathway. So this is not changing. This path remains as it is. At the moment, no one needs to go past that because it's all self-contained. No. So unless they want to go by the undercroft to go to the back. Then they will be going past that. Yeah. Okay. And then we won't be, we don't need to use that undercroft because we have access from the single story, which is on a higher level. But not if they've parked? No. So supposedly they will be walking past that person's flat. Just the second final question is just based on what you said before, it's not compliant with the council's adopted sustainable and designed supplementary planning document. The planning office have just decided in this case not to follow the council's adopted plan. The adopted plan is basically a guidance. It is not a requirement to have stacking or to provide a first floor plan. Because these transfer of noise between flats is mitigated in the form of conditions. So we're not following the guidance? No, it's not. We're not following guidance. The guidance is there to help us make a decision. It's not there to tell us that that is what is required. In this case, what would the guidance be telling us? An ideal situation. If, in this case, it would tell us that preferably stacking would be acceptable. Okay. But in this particular issue, we thought it doesn't need to provide stacking because it is providing quite a few units, some of which are family two-bedroom units. The ones we can see, they seem very small family units. Right, but it is still a faculty unit. Councillor Culloch, any questions? I think some of what I was going to say... Thank you. Any more questions or comments? Councillor Roberts? The issue of subsidence has been covered in the research that they've done for this plan. Subsidence is not a planning consideration, but I did look at the comments when it came in. I've had a look at building control. There weren't any records. But I think that as part of this development, this is the best time to mitigate any form of subsidence through building control. Because they will have to look at the foundations and everything else before they approve the two stories above, like what the agent has just put forth. So this is Councillor Barnes. I'm not sure if this is a question or just a comment. If my understanding of the stacking is correct, if you were to try and match up bedrooms and bathrooms, that wouldn't mean any development would have to be a complete copy of the floor below, and the floor above that would have to be a complete copy of it, which would be a huge restriction. Yes, that is true. And then that would go against our policy, which requires a mix of dwellings. Okay, if there's no more, we will go to a vote. The officers are recommending approval. All those in favour of approval? Four. Those against? Two. So that item is approved. Thank you. And we move on to 35 Hoop Lane and 1 Winterworth Road. The next item on the agenda is an application at 35 Hoop Lane and 1 Wentworth Road in Golders Green. The proposal is the change of use of the existing buildings, formerly a hotel to a Jewish girls secondary school, with associated amenity space, cycle scooter storage, refuse facilities and new boundary treatment. So this is the application site here. So it's the corner of Finchley Road, Wentworth here, and this is Hoop Lane, which crosses over Finchley Road at this point. So there's traffic control and traffic lights on this junction here. That shows a different view. So this is the building on Wentworth and that's the one fronting Hoop Lane. So they were both part of the same site, formerly or most recently used as a hotel. Some more site photographs of the view from Hoop Lane. And another view. And this is the view from Wentworth. As you can see, there's existing car parking in this top part of the site. This is a view from Wentworth showing two existing garages which serve the current site. So the existing ground floor plan, first floor, second floor. This is the proposed ground floor layout. So these are the two garages that will be retained with two parking spaces in front of them. And both the buildings would be converted to provide obviously classrooms and ancillary offices, toilets, et cetera, for the new pupils. So there are currently three vehicle accesses, one here, so in the garage, one here, which serves the parking area in this area. And that one is going to be closed off and removed. This area here will no longer be used for parking. And the other access is on Hoop Lane and that will be retained here to access three car parking spaces in this part of the site. We propose first floor again with classrooms and the second floor. This is the Hoop Lane proposed elevation where you can see the boundary treatment because it's a very prominent corner site. It was considered that the closed boundary was not appropriate here. So the solution has been to erect a 1.8 metre high railing which will have substantial planting in front or behind to provide some landscaping to the site. Other than this and the provision of the refuse and cycle stores, there will be no external changes to the buildings themselves. But obviously there'll be lots of internal work in connection with turning the rooms into classrooms, et cetera. This is the similar elevation as seen from Wentworth Road. So the key considerations are set out in the report. No external changes. The main external change is the boundary treatment. Car parking has proposed for five vehicles on site as requested by the highway as officers. There's various conditions to minimise or to try and address potential impacts on neighbouring residents. As you can see from the site plan, it is very close particularly to the properties in Wentworth. So there are conditions restricting use of the playground, the hours of use of the building itself, preventing sporting activities on site to ensure minimal disturbance. Also conditions to restrict the numbers of students and its use as a secondary school only within this use class. And the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions under Section 106 agreement for various highway matters. One is for which is submission of a travel plan, contributions toward the junction feasibility study to look at the existing traffic lights and whether there should be improvements to pedestrian access there and other works for various changes within the highway, such as keep clear marking school warning signs, which will be secured via the 106. If I can just draw your attention to the addendum as well, which just had an amendment to Recommendation 1 and a couple of the conditions. Nothing further to add at this stage. Thank you. We have Jack Bamberger, who wishes to speak. Is there anybody else who is expecting to speak? We didn't know if there was a second person who wished to speak or not. No? Okay. And Mr Bamberger, thank you. If you can turn the microphone on. Thank you. And you have three minutes to speak and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Thank you. So good evening, Chair, members of the committee. I sit before you today not just to advocate for a new school, but to speak about the power of education and the future we can create together. It isn't just about a building. It's about providing a space for young girls to grow, learn and become the leaders of tomorrow. The site we are discussing, the central hotel at 35 Hoop Lane, is underutilized and no longer serves the community as it should. It's a property that has been criticized for poor maintenance and, frankly, it's time for a change. By transforming it into a school, we have the chance to revitalize the area and create a positive, lasting impact. We understand the concerns of our neighbors. Change can feel unsettling. And it's natural to have questions. Are we committed to working with you, not against you? We're here to listen, to engage and to ensure that the school is a benefit to the entire community. We will address practical concerns like traffic and noise and ensure that the school is a good neighbor. Blending seamlessly into the fabric of Barnett. We can make this work together, balancing progress with respect for the existing community. Imagine a young girl from Barnett walking into the school, a place where she can dream, learn and become anything she aspires to be. Imagine the future leaders who will grow up right here in this community, giving back to Barnett and making it stronger. This school is more than a building. It is a step forward to a brighter future. A future where education is accessible, where opportunity is within reach and where we all share in the success of our children. I ask you to join us in this vision, not just for the school, but for the community we all want to see. Together, we can turn this space into something extraordinary, a place of learning, growth and opportunity. Let's embrace this moment. Let's build this legacy together. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Councillor Barnes? Not directly related to maybe planning, but does this school, is it already in existence or a different site? Yes, it's about 200 metres down the road. It's very close by, so it's just relocating. And with the same numbers? Yes. And is it 11 to 16? Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to ask you about traffic and your management of traffic. I mean, we looked at all the comments and objections that nearly all of them are about the increase in traffic, the speeding of traffic and parking around there. I know your existing school is quite close. Some of the comments were also about parents bringing children to that school and speeding and so on. So I know there'll be a traffic, there'll be a school management plan for traffic. But I wonder if you could outline how you're going to address that to make sure that it doesn't impact on the people living. Right. So, Emily, the agent will speak more about the traffic management plan and plans going forward to make sure we did commission a survey and a transport plan to make sure that we'll address all the concerns concerning the residents in this area. I mean, 97% of children are walking currently to school. It's in a close proximity of the catchment area of the school, so that in itself will minimise a lot of any issues that the residents may have. Does that make sense? Does that make sense? Okay, thank you. Councillor McRae Roberts. I just want to check. I heard that clearly. You say 97% of the children are walking to school? I think, yes. On an ongoing basis? Yeah, I think 3% are currently based in Edgware and they take the tube down to Goldscreen Station and then they'll walk down the road. Again, Emily will have exact figures, who's the planning agent. She'll be speaking after me. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Well, I was going through the list of the objections, the comments made by objectors. One of the points they have, one of the issues they have raised is an area surrounding existing site used for drugs, not for school. How do you think about that? Are they talking about the current site? The site. They say the site is not suitable for school. So, I obviously beg to differ. Growing up in the area, there isn't such an issue of drugs in that area. And if anything, it's probably the optimum place for a school to have in regard to safety and security for the Jewish community. It's probably a lot better than any other sites which we've looked at in the past. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just so that I can clarify this in my mind, you're saying that the objection concerning drugs in the area is overstated and not relevant. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it'll affect, I think the question Councillor Gurion was asking if it's going to affect the school having a school, which there might be other drugs in the area, if I'm not mistaken. And I don't think it will impact the school at all. And it's not a concern which we have, but especially that we are currently a couple of hundred metres away from them. We haven't had any issues with that currently. Will we be providing security? Yes. Good. Thank you. We do have security. We have security all the time when the schools are operating. Just on that point, in the area committee, we brought up that someone mentioned that under the bridge on the other end of Huplain, that someone was caught selling drugs. Area committee gave funding for extra lighting and extra security cameras dealing with that, but it's kind of a few hundred metres and the other bit of a pipeline. OK, thank you very much. I think you know the procedure. If you can put the microphone on, you have three minutes to speak and be given a warning when you have one minute left. Can everyone hear me? Yep. OK. Well, thank you chair and councillors for allowing me the opportunity to speak this evening. And thank you also to the member of publics who are also here this evening. I just want to start off by saying that I have no objections to a school being located at this site. The current hotel building is deteriorated in its state, and residents have long raised concerns about anti-social behaviour, something that councillor Goering just mentioned before. So a new school for girls will provide new premises that will be secure and designed to meet the needs of the students, and will help improve the area and bring long term value to the community. That said, residents have requested that I share their concerns with regards to highways and parking issues. So I've taken the time to carefully read the application and associated reports to fully understand the details. As part of the consultation, 166 responses were received, 55 were objections, and 109 letters of support. How many of them were actually from the neighbouring properties, that's the first thing? The report mentions that the school will have 100 pupils, and I think around 95 or 97 of them are expected to travel by foot or by public transport. While that may be an ideal scenario, they are expected to travel by foot or public transport. There are factors that could significantly impact that estimate. For example, dark mornings, evenings, poor weather conditions, anti-social behaviour, parents dropping off children on their way to work. These are realistic scenarios that could result in more car journeys than anticipated, and I believe that the 95 or 97% figure underestimates the potential volume of drop-offs and the resulting congestion. Parking is already a major issue for local residents, especially on surrounding roads. The additional presence of staff, 15 on-site at any one time, 30 staff in total, and an extra vehicle movement will only worsen the current pressure on parking availability. The CPZ currently operates between 11am and 12pm, which doesn't align with the school's start and end times, which is 8am to 5pm. So I'd be grateful if officers could also confirm whether that timing will be reviewed as part of the Section 106. As I noted, it was mentioned about this CPZ being reviewed. One of the biggest concerns raised by residents is road safety, especially on Ravenscroft Avenue, Templars Avenue, Wentworth Road. There have been three recorded collisions in the last year, and as your report notes, three more at the junction of Finchie Road and Hoop Plain. This area already presents serious challenges for road users, and an increase in car and foot traffic could increase that risk. So I'd like assurance that there will be a robust traffic management measure in place to reduce the risks of accidents. Lastly, I want to mention that myself, Councillor Nigel Young and Councillor Julia Innocenti, who are councillors for Child's Hill, which this development falls within, have been working hard to secure a new pedestrian crossing between Finchie Road and Hoop Plain. We'd like to thank Council officers for their work on this, and I know that plans are in place to secure its delivery by spring of 2026. So I'd also seek, I'd like to seek assurance that the £7,000 in the proposed Section 106 agreement towards the junction feasibility will take into account of the progress in the work on the Hoop Plain and Finchie Road crossing. Thank you very much for your time, and I welcome any questions, if there are any. Thank you. Any questions? Councillor Conway. Thank you. Thank you for that. And obviously, as a councillor, you're here to represent the residents. But just looking through the report, it says highways have no objection to the proposed plan. So do we think from that, that if highways are okay with the planning and the traffic that will come from it, then they kind of know more than the residents who are? So I'm not quite sure if other councillors are aware. However, there is currently. So firstly, I just want to mention that the school have put into the report that there's going to be, I think, 97% or 95% who will be coming in from foot. And they're going to be coming around the area. So highways specifically mentions Hoop Plain and Finchie Road. There's a massive thing in regards to the crossing on that road that's going to be implemented in spring 2026. So the school probably won't be developed until that time period. So that will help. However, with Ravenscroft Avenue, Templars Avenue and Wentworth Road, the highways team are currently working on a phase measure. Phase one has recently just been done. Phase two is going to commence in April this year. But still there's those elements of concerns, as there are in Golders Green, of collisions still on those roads. So I don't feel as though highways have really taken that into account. And because they haven't taken that into account, that's the only concern that I think that residents are raising as you'll see in those objections. I'd like to sort of enhance on that point because children's safety is paramount. And you mentioned the crossings that you're working, you and your board colleagues are working on. But I believe you earlier said that some of the accidents were on Wentworth Templars, that junction. Is there any measures that you can you're aware of that will be putting being going to be implemented in order to calm that section? Yeah, so it's really important to mention that that section of Ravenscroft Avenue boundaries with Golders Green Ward. So it previously went to Area Committee, East Area Committee back in 2022, in which funding was secured to implement some form of speed climbing measures. And that those phases recently, we went to West Area Committee, February 28th, and those phases have now been rolled out. Phase one has recently just been done. And that's just reduced spaces. And it's put double yellow lines just to reduce the the vision, sorry, increase the visual awareness of the road. But also, phase two is going to be rolled out. But still, it's not enough. I think residents, what they really would like to see is 20 miles per hour on that road. And I think with a school, especially with a school in its presence, I've spoken to many residents, they're very happy with the school. But the biggest concern is the road itself. And with a school present, it would be really helpful to have maybe 20 miles per hour speed limit or even some form of speed calming measure, whether that be speed bumps or, yeah, speed bumps or roundabouts. I'm not sure. But that road, Ravenscroft Avenue, Wentworth Road, and Templars Avenue, they're blind spots. I don't know if you've crossed the road yourself, any of the councillors have. I have myself, my colleagues have, and they are blind spots. And it's very, very dangerous to cross the road. Sorry, just following on from what you said, Councillor Kallick, I also wanted to ask, I did ask some questions in my speech, and I wondered whether any of the officers could answer them, if that's going to be addressed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, all councillors. We'll ask them that afterwards. Sorry. Sorry. Just, I'd like to be assured that should this go ahead, you and your ward colleagues will continue to work for those measures on that junction. Absolutely. I think with a school in its place, and if it does go ahead, we'd obviously very much want these speed calming measures to be implemented. We'd obviously work with, if the school did go ahead, we'd work with them to get these speed calming measures. I'd hope that they would agree with such calming measures, but I don't know whether it's something that we could even ask as a condition, that if it were to go ahead, that we could have such speed calming measures, because it is a paramount concern amongst residents of these speeding issues, road issues, and the increased footfall, and potentially the increased drivers will only affect it even further. Councillor Roberts. Thank you. Are you aware of the school at its existing site, whether there have been any incidents of traffic injury to any of the pupils or any danger in that respect? So the existing site is currently in the Golders Green Ward. I haven't, I don't really know myself if there's been any collisions as such. I know there's been, there have been collisions in neighbouring roads, but I don't know if, you know, if it's in relation to the, yeah, I don't know that, no. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Pell. Then we have Emily Benedict speaking as the agent for the applicant. Thank you, Emily. You know the procedure well by now. You can put the microphone on, you have three minutes to speak, and you have a warning for when you have one minute left. Thank you, Chair. My name is Emily Benedict, and I'm the agent for this application. Tonight marks the culmination of almost two years' work to provide not only a well-designed scheme to utilise a brownfield site, but one which is a vital need for the children of the Golders Green community. Over this time, we have worked closely with planning, environmental health and highways officers, and I would like to thank them for their role in ensuring that a robust scheme is presented to you tonight. This application allows a phenomenal opportunity to shape and improve the quality of education for 100 secondary school pupils. The current premises are located around the corner on Finchley Road, but the school does not own the site and have no long-term stability in their current premises. The proposed premises are ideal from a planning and communities perspective. The site is located within a PTAL of 6A and is the most appropriate site in extremely close proximity to a town centre location. Ninety-seven percent of pupils live within a kilometre of the premises and can easily walk, cycle or use public transport to attend school. The remaining three percent live in edgware, which is easily accessible on public transport. The forefront of our discussions with officers have been to ensure that parking and traffic congestion are suitably addressed and mitigated, so as not to adversely impact neighbouring amenities and the safety of pupils. Five parking spaces have been provided for staff, the majority of whom do live in Golders Green, and will be better laid down than the current arrangements which do not comply with highway standards. In the unlikely event that a pupil is driven to school, the parking restrictions on Hoop Lane are for an hour a day, 11 to midday, and parents can safely use the existing car parking spaces immediately outside the school. The school is very conscious of the need to obtain a positive relationship with neighbours and safeguard them against unnecessary noise and disturbance. Members should be aware that the current hotel has unrestricted hours and visitors can come and go at all hours of the day without having regard for their surrounds. By contrast, the school is restricted to daytime hours to be used at maximum five days a week. The applicant has agreed to restrict against the use of formal sporting or physical education lessons in the playground to minimise noise and disturbance. As with the current school, PE lessons will take place on the Heath Extension, utilising the vast natural landscape in close proximity to the site. It should also be noted that there are no policy restrictions against the loss of hotels outside of town centres, whereas new schools should be located in accessible locations as close to town centres as possible. There is a significant shortage of appropriate sites for schools, which is why the central hotel is such a rare opportunity with a barnet, especially in close proximity to where the pupils reside. The hotel requires no external alterations to facilitate its conversion to a school, making it a sustainable use of a brownfield site. In summary, we would like to provide members with the assurances that this is a well-thought-out scheme, and equal consideration has been given to highways and amenity measures as the building itself, so as not to cause disruption or discomfort to neighbouring residents, particularly those in Hoop Lane and Wentworth Road. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Culloch. In the report, there's mention of an acoustic fence, particularly for the adjacent properties in Wentworth Road, 3, 5 and 7. Now, in my ward, I've had two instances of acoustic fences going up and having varied success, particularly in reduction of noise. So, can you assure me you're going to have high enough and dense enough acoustic fences to make sure that those residents are protected, because they're very, very close to the school? Yeah, absolutely. I think what I would also add to it is because of the security measures that are requirements around the school, we're going to have thick hedging as well with the radios behind and then the acoustic fencing. So, it's going to act as an additional barrier. But, as I said, the school are very conscientious and will put in the highest levels of acoustic fencing for the exact reasons that you've said. Acoustic fences be inside or outside of the hedging. So, in other words, which would be closest to the residents? So, it would be the hedging that's closest, then the railings behind to make sure that no one can penetrate, and then the acoustic fencing behind that. Yes, thank you. I think, as you've heard, there's really very few objections to the school as such. It is all about management of the traffic around, which you have addressed somewhat. I would ask officers how that can be put in more strongly within this. The school, as I asked Miss Bunberger before, the school travel plan, how will that address to make sure that parents are not driving too much or speeding along these roads? So, I was looking through the school travel plan today, actually before the meeting, and just kind of re-familiarising myself with it. And it does say that there's going to be signs up everywhere, and green and sustainable transport measures are going to be strongly encouraged. And they're also part of the fee of the Section 106. The £5,000 is going to be monitoring it. So, it's something that's going to be... So, with surveys taking place on a regular basis about how do children get to school, and actively encouraging them to use sustainable modes of transport should help mitigate it. So, one thing I would like to mention is the fact that it is a secondary school, not a primary school. And generally speaking, with secondary schools, there's a greater deal of independence with children travelling on their own, rather than parents taking them. And, you know, it's something that I'd say I've experienced myself as well. But I think one of the things about this school as well, it's very much sandwiched between Finchley Lane... Sorry, not Finchley, Finchley Road and Golders Green Road. Which means that, in addition to those that are able to walk, you've got buses coming up and down frequently, which means from either end, it's going to be very straightforward for the pupils to come. We're not... It's a PTAL of 6A. We're not asking pupils. And one of the reasons why we really wanted the site is because of its proximity to these transport measures. Okay. How that works, but thank you very much. There's no further questions. Thank you. Right, questions for the officers? I think we'd like, as Councillor Pearlberg said, some confirmation or assurance about how the Section 103 Agreement can be included in conditions or be enforced from this. If I could just answer one of the other questions Councillor Pearlberg raised, which is about where the objectors and supporters come from. I'm just looking through all the responses here, and I think it would be fair to say that most of the objectors live in the immediately surrounding roads of Hoop Lane and Wentworth and Templars Avenue. The majority of responses are from NW11. There's a couple from outside NW11, but the majority of supports and objectors are from the wider NW11 area. But it's fair to say that the majority of objectors are local to the site. In regards to the Section 106, the recommendations that the highway officers consider are appropriate are set out in the report. So basically, it's the submission of the travel plan and the monitoring fee of the travel plan. Restriction of CPZ permits being given to staff, which means because there's a CPZ of between 2 and 3, they wouldn't be able to park there all day. So that would kind of limit them and their ability to park in the area. The other matter was the £7,000 contribution towards junction feasibility study. I note what Councillor Pearlberg said about there's already funding for a better crossing there, which would obviously help. So it's basically down to the highway officers to decide how best they want to utilise that £7,000. But it's not a matter for this committee to say how that has to be spent. That's why it's a feasibility study to see what the best method would be and what the other matters could be. I mean, well, it could be traffic calming. It could be a 20 mile an hour neighbourhood. So is there sufficient? Is there any more that we can put into the conditions to improve traffic? Well, obviously, that would involve more money from the applicant, which obviously they haven't necessarily agreed to. They've agreed to sign up to the recommendations of the highway officer, which are set out. I mean, the other matters are not obviously traffic calming, but the other matters are in the 106, is that the applicant has to enter into a Highway 278 agreement about works on the footway, reinstating the access, provision of the school, keep clear markings, guard railings on Hoop Lane and Wentworth Road, school warning signs and upgrading the existing vehicle access. So those matters of themselves will help the safety of the children immediately outside the school when they're travelling to school. But I don't think we can stipulate, or we can stipulate as a committee, exactly what else needs to be, Tina, correct me if I'm wrong, but what else can be secured through the 106 when it's been negotiated that these are the requirements that are considered to be appropriate. Okay, thank you. Any further comments? Otherwise, we will go to the vote. The officers are recommending approval. All those in favour of approval? That's all. That application is approved. Thank you very much. And we're now moving on to Item 10, 7 Gloucester Gardens. Thank you, Chair. The proposal at 7 Gloucester Gardens is for roof extensions involving hip-to-gable with a rear dormer window, front-facing roof lights, following the removal of the existing chimney stack. This is a site location plan. It's a semi-detached property. Benefits from four bedrooms, the existing. This is the aerial view. And these are the site photographs. This is the one to the left, which is the application site. Again, some more photographs of the front. And this is the rear elevation. And some more site photographs facing to the rear garden, properties facing the rear garden of the host site. Again, more photographs of the rear. And this is just the aerial view of the surrounding area. So this is the existing roof plan. Existing loft plan. And the existing front elevation, as you will see. Currently benefits from a hip roof. Existing rear elevation. The attached neighbour is number 9. You'll note that that still benefits from a hip as well. No roof extensions proposed. no roof extensions proposed and this is the existing side elevation again the other side elevation and this is the proposed roof plan and this is the proposed loft plan and the proposal involves hip to gable and the rear dormer window which extends almost the entire width of the roof slope proposed front elevation and this is the hip to gable on the side and this is the proposed rear dormer window as noted in the office's report the recommendation is for refusal and the refusal is on the cumulative size scale design in particular the size of the rear dormer window as you will see here is approximately 10 meters wide and it extends into the gable end this is the proposed rear elevation of so there is a fallback position where the property benefits from a certificate of lawfulness application in other words certificate was submitted to exhaust the permitted development rights and this involved four separate smaller dormer windows which amounted to approximately 50 cubic meters so the one proposed currently exceeds the amount and therefore is approximately 56 cubic meters which obviously won't have any fallback position apart from the one with the certificate this is the proposed side elevation and that's the other side elevation I think it's worth noting that there has been two other applications submitted on the site one is for a two-story front garage sorry two-story front extension garage conversion and a single-story rear extension which was approved on the 5th of March and another application for a two-story rear extension which was approved on the 4th of March so together with this loft conversion if all the approved permissions were implemented this will result in a seven-bedroom property but the loft in itself will just provide two additional bedrooms which over and above the existing form two additional bedrooms are proposed so as i said the recommendations for refusal on the cumulative size scale bulk and design in particular the rear dormer window yeah nothing further to add chair any questions i'm happy to answer thank you have that counselor pearlberg again we should speak on this thank you thank you thank you thank you Okay, when you're ready as before, you have three minutes, be given a warning when you have one minute left. Good evening, once again. So thank you for the opportunity to speak on this application on behalf of my resident, the Gertweer family who live at Seven Closter Soap Gardens. So this is a larger family with many children, and they are in urgent need of additional living space to continue to live comfortably in their home. This application represents a sincere and well-considered attempt to create that space within the confines of their own roof without encroaching on neighboring properties or the surrounding environments. I just want to highlight that the loft is not under debate here tonight. This has already been approved under a permitted development application, which is on the application sheet, which you can see in front of you. That's 24-4533-192. The permitted development application approved four small dormers, and the application seeks to connect their small respective gaps. I'd like to begin by acknowledging that the officer's report identifies no harm to neighbors. There is no loss of light, privacy, or outlook. In fact, the report specifically states the following. It is not considered that the rear dormer would cause significant harm to neighboring amenities. Its scale is not believed to have a significant enough amount to warrant a refusal on amenity grounds. This is an important point. The proposed loft extensions has no impact on anyone else's enjoyment of their home, a key test in any type of planning. The only issue raised relates to the design and its relationship with guidance. However, the basis of refusal is that the design does not comply with guidance, namely the residential design guidance, SPD. It exists to shape the development positively, not to obstruct sensibly much needed improvements like this one. This is not the case of representation of a developer, of investor trying to secure profits by planning, but rather a family who have run into an obstacle. Golders Green and this part of Charles Hill already contain many similar or even more substantial loft extensions, including wide dormers, crown roofs, end-to-end dormers, and hip-to-gable extensions and conversions. Some approved and many built under permitted development. Many of those are much more bulkier and aggressive than the one that is being discussed this evening. The officer's report even acknowledges this stating, it is acknowledged that some of the extensions have not been built according to plan but may have become lawful by virtue of time. In cases where the, and the report follows, in cases where the proposed development could be considered to be in keeping with roof forms of Gloucester Gardens, it is noted that these properties benefit from larger, rear-side dormers. In other words, this is not an opt-out of place proposal, this is the prevailing character of the area. The officer also states that the materials are appropriate and that the proposal could be built in part under permitted development, which itself is a strong material consideration. The dormer seems to be carefully designed to be set back and cited to minimize visual bulk. The applicant is not proposing a front extension or side additional that would be visible from the streets. This is a modest rear-facing change in keeping with what exists widely across the area. Finally, I would just like to highlight that there were no neighbor objections to this application. I would ask the committee to look at the whole picture here. There is a family with a great need, a design that causes no harm to neighbors, no objections, and a proposal that is in keeping with the actual character of the area. So on this basis, I would ask that with the above, that you approve this application. Many thanks. Thank you. Any questions? I've got one. As we heard, since this application came in, two other applications for this property have been approved for an extension on the back and on the front and side. So this is, although you said that, you know, there is nothing on the front and side from this particular application, this is going to increase the impact of that, of being a larger bulk. So I wonder if you could comment on that? Yeah, so I completely understand that. And I actually spoke to the applicant's agent just briefly before discussing this this evening. And he mentioned that this was on the basis in the event that this was disapproved or refused, because there's been a lot of setback, that it was just there in the event that that was refused, that they would build outwards. And it's just, as you know, if you get planning, you have, I think, a three year limit to implement it. So it's on that basis, from my understanding. So are you saying that if this is approved, those would not necessarily go ahead? They may not necessarily go ahead, but obviously the applicant's agent can, you know, relay their comments. Any more questions? Councillor Kallick. The applicant already has prior approval for four separate dormers. Is there any reason why he didn't initially apply for an application in this format? Because from my perspective sitting here, it looks like what I would call a creeping application. So in fear of not getting the application in full in the first instance, he's gone for a variant of it. And now has come back to try and fill in. Have you got any comment on that? So I don't have any particular comments on that. All I can say is that the four dormers currently are under permitted development. So in turn, they would be able to be built regardless. But he's just asking, and I think this, you obviously, the applicant's agent can comment further, the architect can comment further on this. However, it's just the infill, but the gaps between the dormers, the permitted development dormers. So that's from my understanding. That's the only comment I can provide on that basis. Okay, looks like no further questions. Thank you very much, Matt. And we now have the agent or the applicant. Is this a good word? Thank you. If you could turn the microphone on. There's a face symbol there. That's it. And then you have three minutes to speak. You'll be given a minute warning when you have a minute left. Thank you. David Gutworth. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and Councillors. My name is David Gutworth, and I'm the agent for the application before you this evening, 7 Gloucester Gardens. I'm representing a growing Jewish family with many children of varying ages who are in urgent need of additional bedrooms. This application is a response to that pressing need. To be clear, the application before you tonight is not whether the loft should be allowed, nor whether the hip-to-gible element or redormer is acceptable in principle. The overall massing and envelope of the loft, including the hip-to-gible extension, has already been approved under a permitted development application reference ending 192, which you have in front of you, which is quite uncharacteristic. This current proposal simply seeks to make a modest but functional adjustment to infill the spaces between the four previously approved dormers, creating one unified dormer instead. After consideration, the family realized that four separate dormers were impractical for their needs. It's important to emphasize that the loft is already set in from both sides as well from the top and bottom, far less bulky than many lofts in the borough. In fact, there are many examples throughout the area, including the Gloucester Gardens itself, where dormers extend edge-to-edge, wall-to-wall. That is not the case here. I absolutely respect the importance of guidance. However, guidance is not policy, and it should not obstruct modest, sensible alterations that meet real family needs, especially where the impact is negligible. This is a roof-level extension within the existing envelope of the property. It has no impact on neighboring properties, no overlooking or privacy concerns or overshadowing. The officers' reports mention that ground-first and side extensions are always subject to more scrutiny with regards to the impact on neighboring amenities. And to say that this is just out of character is too easy and also prove not to be the case when we all see all edge-to-edge lofts in the area where we are top to bottom. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the character of today's landscape of family homes is to have large dormers and create valuable additional living space for the families in the most neutral fashion. Thank you. I encourage you to vote in favor of this proposal and remain available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kerlick. This is a single-family dwelling, and the intention is to keep it that way. How big a family is it? So it's currently two parents, six children, and perhaps more grandchildren on the way. The nature of the family would be that they would join them on Jewish holidays and gatherings. So they also have six children plus an eye on being able to host more family members they will be joining. As we're talking about the loft extension, I understand that families will gather. They do in all families. But specific to that loft extension, how many children will be actually living in the property? So two more bedrooms are proposed in the loft with an en suite, and that space is required to be able to fit these two dormers because the picture at the front is quite shallow, so the front half of the property is not usable in terms of a loft. And the dormer makes it that we are able to have two functional, normal, decent-sized bedrooms. If I may also respond to the question that was publicly asked to the Councillor regarding other approvals. I understand there are other approvals on site, but these are not part of this application. And I must highlight that these were submitted and approved after this application was submitted initially. And the applicant is evaluating their options and is trying to see the most cost-effective way to get to the bedrooms required. So it's not looking to get to a final of seven bedrooms like it was represented. So going upwards is the most less intrusive way to do so. That was going to be my question as I asked Councillor Pearlberg. He implied that if this was agreed, either or most of those other ones that have been approved would not necessarily say something. You can't say for definite, you would have approval for all of them. Yes, Councillor Pearlberg wouldn't be able to answer that. I know the plans of the applicants. And actually, the re-extension, the double-storey re-extension is not intended to be built and was used as a fallback in case this doesn't come through. I can confirm that, that the first floor, the double-storey re-extension is not in the plans of the applicant to build. That's not in the – it's more expensive and more aggressive. Thank you. Although there is approval for that, so they could if they wanted to. Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Roberts. I just wanted to check. As far as you're concerned, this application and proposed development is not out of keeping with this particular area? Correct. So there are other developments of similar size? Yeah. The majority of the properties in this specific cul-de-sac have wider, bulkier and more out-of-character dormers. Using Google Street View is not the correct way to look at it because the last time it was updated on the sky of Gloucester Gardens was six years ago. So walking around the area would be a more realistic view and I can confirm that they're all bulkier and more out-of-character than the one we are proposing today. No further questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions or comments? I just wanted to ask the officers to sort of explain why they felt the infilling would make a significant difference to the development. Yes, if I go back to the Section 192 certificate plans. As you will see, there are smaller four separate dormer windows which doesn't occupy the entire width of the roof slope. Although it does extend into the gable, they do maintain gaps in between the smaller dormer windows. Whereas when you look at what's proposed currently, it's a 10-metre continuous width across the whole width of the roof slope which has a much bulkier and much heavier, top-heavy sort of appearance as opposed to the four smaller dormer windows. So, I mean, this is contrary to the design guidelines. Design guidelines state that any roof extensions should be subordinate features within the roof space and should not occupy more than half the width or depth of the roof slope. Furthermore, in this case, the next-door neighbour has not been extended in the roof form and by extending this across, although there is a fallback and it would still unbalance it, together with the size of the dormer windows, it's in particular the size of the dormer window, that it will have a significant character impact on the host site. And the relationship with number nine, Groster Gardens. I hope that's answered your question, Councillor Barnes. But with regards to other extensions within the vicinity, yes, there are other dormer windows within the vicinity. I think the only two that we have picked up as having a certificate to applications is numbers 10 and number 14. The others don't benefit from planning permissions, so therefore, whilst you could argue that they do form part of the character of the area, however, there hasn't been any permissions granted and there's no certificates. But because of the time lapse between since they were built, obviously they've become established and we can't do anything about those. But going forward, just because there's bad development within the area doesn't mean that we approve more top-heavy developments that would erode the characteristics of the existing houses within the street. As the fourth dormer, the one closest to number nine, is already permitted, then the three small infills wouldn't in any way affect number nine. They wouldn't be able to even be able to see in any way because they've got that one dormer there already. So in regards to that, we don't think there would be any effect to number nine. No, there is actually no impact in terms of residential amenity impact on number nine. It was only in terms of characteristics of the pair of semi-detached properties where currently they both have hip and when one of them sort of turns into hip-to-gable, then obviously it unbalances the symmetry of the pair of semi-detached properties. Hence the reason why majority of hip-to-gables are actually come in as a certificate application because Council would not support them under a normal planning application. Thank you. As mentioned before, the majority of the houses now around the area and the surrounding roads do have that. And as I was correctly told earlier on, with whiteways, the guidance is just guidance and it's not policy. Yes, that is correct. Guidance is guidance. I think in the whiteways one was that there was a mitigating condition attached to the planning permission where they would be able to resolve the stacking issues by way of providing sound insulation internally. And unless that is achieved, then that condition wouldn't be discharged. So there was a mitigating factor to address that issue. Whereas in this instance, given that the certificate involves four smaller dormers, they are much more subservient to appearance within the roof slope. Therefore, having a one continuous 10-meter width dormer window, which has a much bulkier top-heavy design terms as well, it will envelope the entire width of the roof slope. I guess we have that. I guess it's just the infills. And I guess the mitigating factor here would be to be able to support a growing family with making sure that the small addendums that they want to this actually give them two bedrooms and a bathroom for their growing family. So I guess that would be the mitigating factor in this case. If there are no more comments, we will go to a vote on this. The officers are recommending refusal. So all those in favour of refusal. That's two. All those who are not in favour of refusal. Two. Two. And two are not voting. In that case, as chair, I vote to refuse this application. This application is refused. And we're now going to have a very short... Before we go on to the last two items, that's okay? Item 8, 26 Abbott Gardens. Good evening, councillors. I'm here to present 26 Abbott Gardens for roof extensions, part single, part two storey side and rear extensions, front porch, out building, driveway and other associated works. The location of the property is located south of the group of houses found in the centre of Abbott's Garden. We've got an aerial photo showing the location of the property. This is a front photo, the rear of the property, rear, the neighbours and an aerial photo showing the location of the property. This is the distance between the neighbours. The distance currently is 23.4 metres to the back of the garden and 44.01 metres to the rear elevation of number 64, which is found right at the back. So the existing plans show the house as in current form, existing ground floor. This is a section, an indicative plan. It's showing a cross section between across the front to the rear of the property, including the rear neighbour. This is the proposed front elevation. Currently, the side element is designed according to policy. It's stepped down by 0.5 metres, stepped in by a metre, stepped back by a metre at first floor level. And the porch is found to be minimal. The dormer is on the original roof and the rear element can be found suitable in this case. The rear dormer on the original aspect of the roof is actually considered permitted development. It is the side element. It is the side element that is the extension or within the original roof. We are considering it has a PD fallback position. So this is the rear element, the first floor plan, proposed second floor plan, proposed roof plan, the location of the outbuilding in the rear garden there. It is stated to be auxiliary to the main house and the proposed outbuilding at 2.5 metres in height. So that actually has a PD fallback position as well. So the roof and the outbuildings have got no accordance to guidance. However, these elements can be achieved through permitted development. The single-story rear extensions are considered acceptable. The ground floor side element is at a width of 2 metres in a modest size. And the first floor side extension is modest size. The roof to the side element is actually a gable form and is acceptable because it will match the gable-ended main roof. So we would like to approve with subject to conditions. Thank you. I have one speaker on this, Stephen Coesley. Mr. Coesley, if you'd like to come forward. If you can turn your microphone on, there's a button on the base. That's the one, yep. Okay. And speak into the microphone so everyone can hear you. You have three minutes to speak and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Thank you very much indeed, Chair and Councillors. Our objections at the rear garden of the subject house goes across the rear gardens of 66 Abbott's Gardens, which is which I live, and number 64 Abbott's Gardens. My neighbour, who sadly, for reasons of being unwell, cannot be here. Our objections relate to the bulk and size of the proposed roof extension and to the position of the outbuilding. Firstly, the roof extension. Barnett's residential design guidance sets out the criteria to be met when considering dormer roof extensions. We have no objection to the principle of a dormer winter provided it meets the criteria set out in that design guidance, i.e. it sits well within the existing pitched roof and does not jar with the existing roof scape of adjoining houses. The proposed rear dormer before you contravenes this criteria. Its bulk and size, in effect, creates a three-storey house totally out of keeping with the two-storey architecture of Abbott's Gardens. It would have an unbalancing effect on neighbouring properties and be insensitive to the existing architecture of Abbott's Gardens. Approval would set an undisceptible precedent. This is fully acknowledged in the planning office's report, which states the roof extensions would not accord with the design guidance. The hip to gable would unbalance the pair of roofs and the dormer takes up most of the rear slopes. Secondly, if we come to the rear outbuilding, which includes a garden room, gym, kids space, storage and WC. This expands the entire width of the applicant's garden and abuts the boundaries of my house and my neighbours. Because our houses are south-facing, there will be a direct loss of sunlight and daylight to our rear gardens, which are cultivated and designed for sitting out. In addition, its height of 2.5 metres will significantly block the open outlook from our gardens. Thank you. Condition five is about the outbuilding should not be used as a separate dwelling, but we believe this is an unenforceable condition. The officers' report refers to the roof extension and outbuilding being permitted development, but this would only be the case if they were erected at different times. The planning application before the committee is not permitted development and should be treated as such. In conclusion, we would ask the committee to defer making a decision subject to the submission of a daylight and sunlight assessment in relation to the outbuilding, and the outcome of a site meeting between myself, my neighbour, the applicant and the agent in order to reach a mutually agreeable situation. I would stress that we would have loved the opportunity to have been consulted with the neighbour or the future occupants consulting us. I did make various requests in writing that this should happen, but received no response. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any questions? No, I think you've made your position quite clear. Thank you very much. And we have the applicant, Anthony Cohen. Thank you, Mr Cohen. If you can put the microphone on. That's it. You only have three minutes to speak and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Thank you. Chair, planning officers, councillors, thank you for hearing me today. I bought this house to move in with my current fiancé when we get married. We have between us five children. One of them won't be living in this house. He will be, after he leaves university, moving in with some friends. So we're extending the house to make it livable for us. We bought in Abbott's Gardens because we love the area. We love the community spirit. We had pre-planning meeting with planning officers before we did any plans and before we submitted planning permission to make sure that everything we were doing was within planning guidelines. We followed the letter. My architect had strict instructions not to contravene or push any boundaries. So this is what we have done. I appreciate that our neighbours object to the rear building. But as you can see from the elevation drawings of the cross section, the outer building is far below the fence of their gardens. So I'm not sure why they think there's a loss of light there. Thank you for hearing me today. Has anybody got any questions? Thank you. Any questions? Councillor Roberts? I just want to check on that last point you made and several of us visited the site on our council site visits. That is below the ground, the height of that, the extension rear building is below the height of... So the garden slopes downwards. To be able to put the shed at a level, we would have to bring it to the level. We would have to put a base lower than the current back of the garden. So the top of the shed is actually, once we've brought it in a little bit and put in a base, the top of the shed would actually be lower than the current fence, which is a two metres from Mr. Kersey's garden. He has a hedge at the back. So it would actually be lower than that. So it's not on the shed? Correct. Correct. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions for the officers or comments? If not, we'll go straight to the vote. The officers are recommending approval. All those in favour of approval? That's all. That application is approved. And we now go on to the last application. Item 9, the David Lloyd Leisure Centre. So the final application is for David Lloyd Leisure Centre in North Finchley in Leisure Way. The conversion of existing tennis courts to provide three paddle courts. This is the location plan. So this is the High Road. This is the main David Lloyd building. There's Wingate and Finchley Football Club up here. The Leisure Centre is on the right hand side. So the three courts in question are these three here. There are two courts here which are covered by a dome. And then these three are open, although they do have permission for covering during the winter months. And this is the car park that serves the David Lloyd Centre. So this is the aerial view. This is the three courts here. And obviously you can see the car park there. The access is in here via Leisure Way. Site photographs. A nice rainy day showing the existing flood lighting, which is higher than what's currently proposed. Well, this will be removed. That's the dome on the building or the courts next door. So the existing and proposed site plan. So that's the three existing courts. So the three paddle courts. Paddle courts are much smaller than tennis courts. So they can fit three of them into half the site. So they will be here. There's a little social area. The plan of which I'll show you in a moment to associate you with the paddle courts. And then this here will become an increased parking area for the use, not just for paddle, but for all the users of the site. Again, access just via a small ramp from the existing car park. So these are the paddle court elevations. Paddle courts basically have a clear, glazed boundary up to four meters in height. With additional netting on the top, one of the courts will have a canopy over it. This is the appearance of the canopy. This is the social area, which apparently is associated with lots of paddle courts. So a few tables and chairs, a TV screen. And again, that will have a cover. There's some CGI's which give better examples. This is the sort of the leisure area with this canopy over the top. This is a one from a different David Lloyd. And this is what the paddle courts look like. So they're clear, clear structures around the edge with netting above. And then one of the courts is going to be covered with this kind of structure on the top, which is open, just has a roof in the event of rain. So the key considerations are that it's basically an alternative tennis facility. Paddle is a tennis facility and the governing body is the Lawn Tennis Association. The appropriate scale of the development in relation to the overall club. It's considered there'll be minimal impact on neighbouring occupiers. And as you can see from the site plan and the site, if it is yesterday, the nearest residential occupiers are on the other side of the high road. Environmental health officers do have some concerns about the noise from paddle courts, which can be louder than from tennis courts. So in the addendum, we're suggesting an additional condition, which is the submission of a noise report to assess potential, the noise levels that will be generated from paddle and whether any mitigation is necessary. And finally, there were concerns raised by the ecology officer because there's quite a substantial hedging screen along the high road and implications for lighting and bats. Again, there are further conditions about agreeing lighting and the timing of the flood lighting on the paddle courts, which will go off at 10pm, which is the same as the existing courts. And the ecology officer has no further objections. If I can just point out, in terms of the number of objections, the majority, in fact, I think virtually all the objections are from people who play at the club and don't want to lose the tennis courts, rather than there are no objections from any local residents immediately surrounding the site. Thank you. Thank you. As I can see, I don't think we have any of the objectives here to speak. So I assume that you're Mr Collins, Ollie Collins, the agent. So if you can put the microphone on. That's it. Sure. You have three minutes to speak. I mean, you've heard what the officer said, so it's anything in addition to that, I think, that you've got to say in support of this application. And you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left. Perfect. Thank you. Good evening, chairs, members of the planning committee. My name is Ollie Collins, and I'm the agent for the application. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of David Lloyd. This application was submitted in December 2024 for the conversion of three existing tennis courts to three paddle courts, including one court with a lightweight canopy, flood lighting, social area, and the creation of 32 additional car parking spaces. David Lloyd are investing heavily in paddle tennis across all of their clubs, as it provides a wider opportunity for family and mixed ability participation and allows easier access and involvement to this growing sport compared to more standard forms of tennis. We support your officers' recommendation for approval. We've positively responded to all queries and consultee responses and have agreed to additional amendments to the scheme based on comments received from statutory consultees. This has included amending the proposed hours of use for the paddle courts and associated lighting, and lighting within the additional car park areas, and agreeing additional pre-commencement conditions to include EV charging, disabled parking, cycle parking, and surface material details, alongside a demolition and construction management and logistics plan, which will minimise destruction during construction. We've further agreed to install protective barriers for bats during construction. Passive infrared sensors are also incorporated into the lighting design, which ensure that the lighting is only operational when the paddle courts are in use, and not during hours of daylight. We've also provided further information relating to the proposed floodlights from the project lighting consultants, which demonstrates that the scheme remains in full compliance with the guidance from the Institute of Lighting Professionals, and is supported by the Council's Lighting Engineer and Ecology Officer, who have no objection. The Local Highway Authority have been consulted and have confirmed that the parking extension is acceptable, and 10% of the spaces will be fitted with EV charging, and 10% for disabled drivers in line with policy. The proposals will not create any adverse noise impacts due to the location of the paddle courts adjacent to the main club building, and the separation distances from any sensitive residential uses. Notwithstanding this, we've agreed to a pre-commencement condition for the provision of noise impact assessment prior to the construction of the paddle courts. In conclusion, as noted in your officers' report, all of your Council's officers and statutory consultees are fully satisfied and in support of the proposals. The proposed development is appropriate in scale, and would not lead to any adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the area or harm any neighbouring immunity. We would be therefore grateful for confirmation of your officers' recommendation to approve. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions? No, I'd just like to ask, I was wondering, has there been any consultation with Sport Britain or the London Tennis Association about the loss of courts? There hasn't been any formal consultation, as this isn't a formal requirement, as there's no loss of playing field. There's been some informal consultation with members, and just to pick up on the point with regard to some of the objections, there's no loss of tennis-related facilities, so the facilities are kind of moving from one form of tennis to another, and David Lloyd are committed to invest in bringing paddle tennis to their clubs in line with the surge in popularity. That's why this investment is taking place and why the planning application was submitted. Paddle in itself is more family-friendly, it's kind of more inclusive, and it allows for all ages to be involved in tennis as an accessible way to engage and get involved in sport. I want to say that it's not a planning thing, but I did notice from some of the comments that several people thought there were too many people using the club already. Obviously, you're doing very well. I'm going to increase on that. Thank you very much. Councillor... My comment or question is pretty similar to Councillor Farrion's, and probably not a planning consideration, but to address the concerns of the complainants. Do you feel there will still be sufficient facilities for the existing people who want to play tennis? Yeah, absolutely. So the club itself is a premium health and fitness rackets facility. So there's lots of tennis facilities available at the club, indoor and outdoor, including 10 indoor tennis courts, multiple outdoor tennis courts, the tennis dome that was mentioned, badminton courts, multi-sports hall, gym studios, internal and external spa facilities. So there's a lot that the club offers. This is David Lloyd. They're taking the opportunity to diversify and allow their club to kind of meet the growing demand for the sport. Currently, there are some members who are travelling quite the distance to other David Lloyd clubs, and they want to ensure that the paddle tennis is available in the locality for these members. Thank you. There's no further questions. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Any further comments or questions to the officers? No? Otherwise, we'll go straight to the vote. The officers are recommending approval. All those in favour of approval. That's all. So that application is approved. And that's everything for this evening. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you.
Summary
The Planning Committee approved applications for developments at White Ways, 35 Hoop Lane and 1 Winterworth Road, 26 Abbots Gardens and David Lloyd Leisure Centre. Councillors refused an application for 7 Gloucester Gardens after a tied vote, with Councillor Claire Farrier, Chair of the Planning Committee using her casting vote.
White Ways, Hillview Gardens - 24/3025/FUL
The committee considered an application for the removal of the roof at White Ways, Hillview Gardens, to add additional storeys and create nine self-contained flats, as well as a part single, part two-storey side extension to facilitate a stairway.
Objectors, including Ruben Brune, speaking on behalf of leaseholders, raised concerns about the impact on the character of the building, loss of privacy for ground floor flats, and the lack of a first floor plan in the application. Mr Brune said:
This is a poorly planned application. It is incomplete. It is inaccurate. It does not comply with the Council's adopted sustainable and design supplementary planning document.
Shimon Simon, another objector, raised concerns about the change of character of the building, the burden on current residents, and the lack of a management company. He also stated that the building was currently uninsured and had a history of subsidence1.
Michael Koutra, agent for the applicant, stated that the scheme had responded to public concerns and met planning policy requirements. He said that parking provisions were fully allocated off-street, and that refuge storage was acceptable to the refuge team. He addressed the issue of room stacking2, saying that a pre-completion sound report would be provided.
In response to questions, officers stated that while stacking was preferable, it was not always possible due to housing mix requirements, and that a condition was in place for pre-completion sound test certificates.
The committee voted to approve the application, with four votes in favour and two against.
35 Hoop Lane and 1 Wentworth Road - 23/2757/FUL
The committee considered an application for a change of use of existing buildings at 35 Hoop Lane and 1 Wentworth Road, from a hotel to a Jewish girls secondary school.
Jack Bamberger spoke in favour of the application, emphasising the need for a space for young girls to grow and learn. He committed to working with the community to address concerns about traffic and noise.
Councillor Matthew Perlberg, a ward councillor, shared residents' concerns regarding highways and parking issues. He noted that the school had stated that 95-97% of pupils were expected to travel by foot or public transport, but suggested that this figure might be impacted by factors such as weather and anti-social behaviour.
Emily Benedek, agent for the applicant, said that the proposed premises were ideal from a planning and communities perspective. She stated that 97% of pupils lived within a kilometre of the premises and could easily walk, cycle or use public transport. She also said that the school was conscious of the need to obtain a positive relationship with neighbours and safeguard them against unnecessary noise and disturbance.
Councillor Perlberg asked how traffic management could be strengthened within the plans. Officers responded that the school travel plan would include signs and encouragement for sustainable transport, and that surveys would be conducted regularly.
The committee voted to approve the application.
26 Abbots Gardens - 24/5627/HSE
The committee considered an application for roof extensions, side and rear extensions, a front porch, an outbuilding, and driveway alterations at 26 Abbots Gardens.
Stephen Kersley, a neighbour, objected to the bulk and size of the proposed roof extension and the position of the outbuilding, stating that it would cause a loss of sunlight and block the open outlook from their garden.
Anthony Cohn, the applicant, said that the house was being extended to make it liveable for his family, and that he had followed planning guidelines. He stated that the outbuilding was below the fence of the neighbours' gardens, so would not cause a loss of light.
The committee voted to approve the application.
David Lloyd Leisure Centre, Leisure Way - 24/5256/FUL
The committee considered an application for the conversion of existing tennis courts to provide three paddle courts at David Lloyd Leisure Centre, Leisure Way.
Ollie Collins, agent for the application, said that David Lloyd were investing heavily in paddle tennis, as it provided a wider opportunity for family and mixed ability participation. He said that the proposals would not create any adverse noise impacts, and that the Local Highway Authority had confirmed that the parking extension was acceptable.
In response to questions, Mr Collins said that there had been informal consultation with members, and that there was no loss of tennis-related facilities. He said that paddle tennis was more family-friendly and inclusive.
The committee voted to approve the application.
7 Gloucester Gardens - 24/5500/HSE
The committee considered an application for a roof extension at 7 Gloucester Gardens. The proposal was for a hip-to-gable roof extension with a rear dormer window and front-facing roof lights.
Councillor Perlberg spoke in favour of the application, stating that the proposed dormer seemed to be in keeping with the character of the area, and had no adverse impact on neighbours or the streetscape.
David Gutwirth, agent for the application, said that the application sought to make a modest adjustment to infill the spaces between four previously approved dormers. He said that the loft was already set in from both sides, and was less bulky than many lofts in the borough.
Officers stated that the infilling would make a significant difference to the development, as it would create a 10-metre continuous width across the whole width of the roof slope, which would have a much bulkier and heavier appearance.
Councillor Roberts asked if the proposed development was out of keeping with the area. Mr Gutwirth responded that the majority of properties in the cul-de-sac had wider, bulkier, and more out-of-character dormers.
The committee voted on the officer's recommendation to refuse the application. The vote was tied, with two councillors in favour of refusal and two against. Councillor Farrier used her casting vote to refuse the application.
Attendees
Meeting Documents
Additional Documents