Transcript

Transcript

My name is Claire Farrier, I'm a councillor for East Finchley and I'm chair of this planning committee. Thank you all for attending the planning committee and I'm going to ask members of the committee to first introduce themselves and then followed by the planning officers, legal officer and governance. Let's start with councillor Roberts. Good evening, I'm councillor Tim Roberts representing Underhill Ward. Good evening, ladies and cadaily. Richard Barnes, councillor for Barnetvale. Michael McCullough, councillor for Collindale South. Joshua Conway, councillor for Hendon Ward. Councillor Elliot Simbergh, councillor for Mill Hill Ward representing London borough Barnet. Officers, Fruity Palmer, case officer for Barnet planning. Lesley Feldman, one of the Planning Managers. Mark Springfield, Planning Manager. Daniel Weider, Senior Planning Officer. Tina Farage, Legal Officer. Farah Hussain, Governance Officer and Clerk to this committee. We ask that you remain seated throughout the meeting, unless you are called to the table to address the committee. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in law or by the council. By attending, either in person or online, you may be picked up on recordings. Council recordings are covered by a privacy notice, which can be found at barnet.gov.uk. For each application, the Planning Officer will present the applications. Each speaker will then have three minutes to address the committee, and the Governance Officer will inform you when there is a minute left. The committee then has the opportunity to ask questions of speakers and officers. Following discussions, the committee will determine the application, and the chair will announce the committee's decision. Please note, we are currently in the pre-election period, in advance of the Whetstone by-election on 15th May. During this time, ordinary council business can continue, but members are reminded not to refer to candidates in relation to the upcoming election. Thank you for your support in ensuring that these principles are respected at all times. So if we now turn to the agenda, a slight change in the agenda, item 10, the garage blocks anesthesiomians, we're moving up to after item 7, if that makes any sense. So we'll be hearing two applications about Alexandra, the rear of Alexander Road first, and then Anastasia Muse, and then going back to West Heath Road and Tentersen Gardens. So on the agenda, we're looking at the minutes of the last meeting. Can you read the minutes? Next slide, please. All members are present, so there's no apologies for members. Do any members want to declare any interest? Councilor Conway. Item 9, I called into committee, but I have in no way made up my mind or any decision. No more declarations of interest. The addendum has been published this afternoon, so I hope everyone has seen that, and officers will refer to what's in the addendum when they make their reports. And we then move on to the first item, item 6, the rear of 39 Alexandra Road. Now, there are two items for this. They're both slightly different, but we're going to ask the officers to present both together to explain the differences. But the agent or applicant who is speaking on this, and Councillor Prager, who also wish to speak on this, we will give slightly more, possibly not hold six minutes to speak, but slightly more than the normal three minutes, so that they can address both of these, if that makes sense. So I go to the officers now to present items 6 and 7. Thank you. So the first two applications tonight concern the site at the rear of 39 Alexandra Road. The scheme relates to the demolition of the existing building on the site, and the two applications for the erection of a new building, one single storey and one part single, part two storey, as we'll see. So this is the site location plan outlined in red, the access coming off Alexandra Road. An aerial view of the site, Alexandra Road, just on the right of the image there, with the access road, and then below the site, you can see Bell Lane Primary School. 3D aerial view gives a little bit of perspective of the existing single storey building that's there. Here's a few site photos taken from the officers site visit. This is the right-hand side of the building, coming up close to the rear garden boundaries of houses of Alexandra Road. This picture of the wider site, showing the empty land next to the building, and the rest of the site, and that fence running up along the photo here, that's the side boundary fence to number 84 Victoria Road. Existing ground floor plan, the building as existing, is just a shade under 100 square metres. And here's the front and rear elevations, slightly pitched or sloping away, single storey roof there, and then from the rear, that's the bottom image. That would be what you'd see from Bell Lane Primary School. The building as existing sits well below the defence, because Bell Lane is on a much higher ground level. Existing side elevations, the top elevation is what the view would be from the gardens of Alexandra Road, and then the other side elevation at the bottom there. Existing sections, showing the height of the building, the existing ridge height, and then sloping down slightly to the eaves height there of around 2.7. So the first application we're looking at, this is the proposed block plan. So it will be demolition of the existing building and a rebuild of a single-storey building, which fills the site, as you can see there. Here's the ground floor and roof plan. The proposed use of the building stays exactly the same. The application concerns really just a rebuild of the dated facilities and providing a bit more storage space on site. The front and rear elevations, as you can see on the bottom, rear elevation, the building would still sit below the boundaries, so it wouldn't be visible at all from Bell Lane Primary School. And the side elevations, again, top elevation, what would be viewed from Alexandra Road, and the bottom elevations would be the elevations running up alongside adjacent to the boundary with 84 Victoria Road. Here's the section drawings, showing an indicative height on this side of around 3.4 metres. The ground level is slightly lower than the adjoining ground level of the gardens of Alexandra Road, so there would be a slightly lesser perceived height of around 3.3. Some indicative CGI's of what the proposed building could look like, with a green roof atop. So, for this first application, the new building would remain in exactly the same use. The proposal doesn't include any intensification of use. Most other matters are addressed at length in the officer's assessment. It is recognized that the development will provide improved facilities for a vital communal infrastructure and service, which is given weight in the planning balance. However, overall, the impact of the additional height of the new building on the neighbouring occupiers, on Alexandra Road and 84 Victoria Road, is considered to be harmful to their amenities, and the application is therefore recommended for refusal. Going straight on to the second application, this is for a very similar proposal, so we'll skip all the existing plans and jump straight into the proposed. Again, ground floor is almost identical, if not identical. Pretty much the same layouts, and you can see the vehicle turntable over there. What's different in this application is it includes an approximately 60 square metre first floor element tucked away in the back corner. As you can see on these first floor and roof plans. In terms of elevations, front and rear elevation. So the image on the below, you can now see that first floor will rise up a few metres from, as seen from Beltane Primary School. And then the side elevations, the top one, as looking at it from Alexandra Road, and the bottom two elevations, as looking at the building, as it would run up adjacent to 84 Victoria Road. The end west elevation image here is there to illustrate the fact that the gardens at number 84 Victoria do actually rise up in their ground level as well. So the height of their garden at the back is a little bit higher, so the impact of the height is reduced somewhat. And that's illustrated in this titled End West Elevation. Section drawings showing the height of the first floor measured at a total of 6.3. And then on this side, again, same as the first application, height there of around 3.4 in terms of the gardens of Alexandra Road. Here's some CGI's of what the building would look like with the part single, part two storey development. So for this second application, as before, the use and the numbers, et cetera, are all considered expected to stay the same, and that's all considered acceptable. The development, again, does provide an important communal function, and there is weight given to that. For this part single, part two storey development, the application is considered unacceptable on two grounds. One in terms of the neighboring amenities, similar as before, but obviously with the additional impact of the first floor, and also in terms of the character, the two storey development being considered at odds with the surrounding character of the area. Thank you. I have Councillor Prego wishes to speak. As I say, are you going to speak on both together, or do you want two separate, three minutes? Yes, please, Chair. I'll speak on six and seven together, if that's all right. Hopefully not completely up to six minutes, but certainly you'll have more than three minutes. I hope not. Depends on the interruption. Thank you, Chair, and thank you also to Governance for being very facilitating with this. Good evening to the Committee. So, as you just heard from Mr. Weider, there are two applications here, numbers six and seven. One's for a single storey, one's for a part two storey building. Both of these are currently being recommended for refusal, which is why I requested to speak this evening. The application is being made by a registered charity for its own use to bring the existing building forward into the 21st century. It's been used by the charity for over 30 years, and there are a number of health and safety items that need to be upgraded, essentially. There aren't any changes in the operation that are proposed, and therefore there's not going to be any adverse impact on any of the neighbouring immunity. And I think that's very important to mention, because throughout the consultation, through the letters, the site notices, local adverts, etc., there hasn't been a single objection to this application by any of the neighbours. Sorry, so that's to either of the schemes, six or seven. I've spoken to the applicants. I've spoken to some of the local neighbouring residents, and I've spent quite a bit of time looking at these plans and the supporting reports. And I can't see that either scheme offends any planning principle that's been mentioned, and clearly neither did any of the neighbours. Unless asked by a member of the committee, I'm not going to go into detail about what the charity does. But, you know, in one line, it prepares the bodies of deceased people for burial. And I'm happy to discuss a little bit further with members of the committee if they wish to ask that question as to what that actually entails. And the importance of that for Orthodox Jewish individuals. I believe that given the community use of the site, the Barnet PSED, which is the Public Sector Equality Duty, should absolutely be taken as positive material consideration, and it should weigh in favour of the proposal. Those members of the committee that would have attended on the site visit would have seen that, rather than it being out of character, as perhaps described, as a ward councillor and local resident, I know the area very, very well. And around 75 metres to the west of this site is a cluster of multi-storey blocks of flats, with one of them being 17 storeys high and the rest of them being between 4 and 17 storeys high. 75 metres to the east, give or take. Apologies if it's closer to 60 or closer to 80. There's another four-storey block of flats. So it's by no means, from my perspective, being out of character with the local area. And so based on those, I would ask that you support both of these applications. And I'm happy to take any questions that the chair or any members of the committee may have. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Any questions? Councillor Roberts. Just wondering if you could just... The reason for doing this is to, at any stage, to accommodate more, unfortunately, funeral events. Is that behind the thinking, behind this application? So that's not accurate. I don't believe that there's any intention to increase the volume of work that's carried out. It's just to support the individuals, the volunteers that carry out these duties. As I mentioned, for health and safety reasons, there's a sort of wrench that's being installed, like a sort of mini crane that will allow... So if I give you a little bit of background information that I held back on earlier, it might be able to support. Essentially, what this organisation does, this charity, is that it washes a deceased body in a mikvah, which is like a ritual bath, which is a requirement for Orthodox Jews... for Jews to do so before burial. The volunteers will then dress the body and lay the body in a closed coffin. This is the only opportunity for the family to say their farewell in a one-on-one situation, as opposed to at the mass funeral. From this location, the coffin is taken to the house of the deceased, and that's when the funeral takes place. And the idea is that this whole process should happen as close to the time of death as possible, and usually it's on the same day, sometimes the following day, but usually on the same day. And this site was donated to the organisation 30-plus years ago, and has been in use since then, for this use. Now there's no intention, as far as I understand, to increase the volume of bodies that will go through this location. It's just to assist the individual volunteers that are carrying out this process to help them do it in an easier manner. And, again, the improved facilities will less lengthen the service that takes place in the burial? Will it be more interruptive to local residents? The idea is, I think, the opposite, to expedite the process, to make it smoother, and to allow it to be done by less individuals than are currently doing it. So things that are manually being done by people, by men going in and physically lifting a body and putting it into the mikvah, into this ritual bath. In fact, having the mechanical support will allow fewer individuals to be going back and forth, and, as I said, it will expedite this. It will be a speedier process rather than a longer process. So, if anything, there will be less time on site, and potentially less individuals doing so as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, obviously, there are concerns around it being in a very tight housing community, you know, with not a lot of open space around it, around the actual site. And I was just wondering two things. What other alternative sites within the borough carry out the same facilities? And also, the Council Roberts concern was increased usage, or possible increased usage, which I think you've explained. But can you just sort of explain, it's a very large community, or is it a particular community within a community that would be using this facility? Thank you, Councillor Kallick. So, yes, just to mention the last point you mentioned earlier, to start with that, which is the increased use, that there isn't any expectation for increased volumes. As I mentioned earlier, the community that uses this space is not, the organisation that carries this out services the entire Jewish community in Hendon and beyond. So, multiple wards around Hendon that use this space. Just to address your comment, because it is an important one about the location of this facility. So, as I mentioned earlier, this was a property that was donated to the organisation probably before I was born, but definitely more than 30 years ago, and has been in constant use. I'd say probably close to daily use. I don't know the exact numbers since then. And I think, as I mentioned in my statement earlier, I think it's really important to note that, despite everything you've mentioned, which is the location and the potential theoretical impact it may have on neighbouring residents, in fact, there hasn't been a single objection from residents to either of these applications, despite them being made aware of it through local advertising and through letters of consultation and other such means. So, I think that shows that the neighbouring residents, at least the ones that I've spoken to and met with, are supportive or apathetic towards this. And the work is carried out in as subtle a way as possible. And by subtle, I mean that it's not overt. There aren't, if I may be callous, there aren't bodies being dragged through the street. This is done in a very careful way to ensure that, firstly, that the body is respected, but also that neighbours are respected as well, so that there is no way of anyone walking past knowing really what is happening there. And the officer earlier mentioned the view from Alexandra Road, having again, I actually, until recently, lived just on the corner about a 30-second walk from this site. And I didn't even know it existed there. I walked up and down it every day, taking my kids to school and back, and up and down Alexandra Road. And from the street, you cannot even see what, like, it doesn't, it very much looks, as does the proposal, look like a normal property. You wouldn't know that there's anything else happening there. Councillor Zimberg. Should the committee remind you to refuse this application, what would the effect be on the community? That's a very good question, Councillor Zimberg. As I said, I think the proposal here is to support a charity that has been around for, I don't know, I would say probably as long as there's been a Jewish community in the UK. So I'm sure this charity in one form or another has been around for well over a couple of hundred years. It's, it's, and the reason I felt important to speak tonight is because from my view, I don't have it, I don't understand any reasons to refuse the application. It's not asking for a three-story building that is out of character. It's not asking for something that will be, that will be oppressive to the residents. The impact is it will just make it hard, it will continue to make it difficult for volunteers of the charity to carry out the very important work that they do. I personally experienced firsthand using this charity recently. My grandmother passed away a couple of weeks ago, and it's this very charity that supports people who are grieving in that, because I mentioned earlier that within Judaism, the idea is to bury a body the same day that the individual passes away. There's a lot of red tape to get through, and this charity is extremely supportive in helping any individual go through that, because it's, you're obviously, the day that a family member passes away is a hectic one in any sense, so to also go through this whole process makes it even harder, and all the, these are all volunteers who are there to support the families throughout this process, which is a very difficult one to go through, regardless. Thank you. Okay, I just wanted to ask you about, as you mentioned, there have been no objections submitted on this. There's also been no comments in favour of it, which I think from our experience of similar community facilities, we very often get quite a lot of comments in favour. So I wondered if, as a local councillor, you obviously know people around that area very well. What you would make of this? I mean, you may, I'm sure you've spoken to local people, both for and against, and seen what the situation is. You mentioned before that nobody has wanted to object. So I wondered if you have comments on the lack of objections and the lack of comments in favour. Thank you, thank you, Chairman, Chair. So, yeah, I said I was a local where I used to live, I spent, until recently, I lived for a few years on the corner of Alexandra Road and Finchley Lane, so like I said, maybe 30 metres from this location. So I know, having lived there for a number of years, I know a lot of the residents there who I mentioned are either supportive or apathetic. I would say that this is not going, this may not improve the life of a local resident, but it's not going to make any negative difference. So I think from my experience as a councillor over the past seven years, generally the support comes from a resident drumming up the support of their ward, of their friends and family to support an application. It's usually only, the only comments you usually see on an application are the objections, in the same way that very few people log into, I don't know, Trustpilot or a Google review and say, my hotel stay was lovely, usually it was terrible, this was wrong and that was wrong and they didn't have towels. So people usually write comments on a planning application, in my experience at least, when they have something to object to rather than to support. I can, unfortunately I can't speak on behalf of Barnett's Jewish community, but if I could, I think the Jewish community would be extremely supportive of this proposal. And the reason why I requested that this be called in was that actually in my initial email to the officer was, I'm sure that this application would be supported, if for any reason it would be accepted, if for any reason officers are minded to refuse it, I requested that it be called in. I was very surprised that it was called in and I think had the charity been aware that there was any chance of it being refused, I'm sure they would have been able to drum up significant, significant support for that through petitions or supportive comments or the like. OK, thank you. Any more questions? No, thank you very much. Thank you very much to the committee. And we now have the agent or the applicant, Mr Ormond or Mr Curtis. Mr Curtis is going to speak. Thank you. If you could turn the microphone on, there's a face with a speech sign coming out of it, if you can see I'm there, I'll show you that too. Thank you. As I said before, I'm asking you to speak on both these applications, so we'll give you up to six minutes. Yeah, I won't need that long. That's OK. So thank you. Forgive me if I rip anything that you may have had as answers from the councillor, councillor Prager before, but I'll just go through a few things. I'm happy to take any questions towards the end if you need as well. So just a quick word to thank those members of the committee who came to the site today. Thank you for your time. So my name is Jeff Curtis, and although it says I'm the applicant on the Planning Officer's Report, I'm actually the representative of an organisation called the Northwest London Nechevra Kadisha. Our organisation was 80 years old this year and remains as it commenced entirely made up of non-paid members. We care for the deceased members of the Jewish community of Barna and preparing them for burial and performing the various religious customs required. We also assist and care for their immediate family members as they go through that difficult time. Due to both religious and modesty reasons, we have male volunteers and female volunteers. The male volunteers deal with the men who are deceased and the women with the women. We've been on the site we currently occupy for over 30 years and we enjoy an excellent relationship with all of our neighbours. However, the premises are simply no longer fit for purpose. The current premises require a huge amount of manual carrying, often considerable weight. The new facility has been designed with a hoist internally to assist the volunteers to manoeuvre the deceased around the facility in the most respectful way while protecting the volunteers from injury. This would particularly be helpful for the women volunteers who on the whole are all aged 50 years old and over. This is why we require the uniform height seen on the proposed plans of the ground floor. Due to the lack of space, we've also been storing numerous items off-site. Recently, we had to vacate one of those sites and moved all those items to our current premises, making manoeuvrability harder. We've also had to do all of our laundry off-site. All coffins are made and stored in Hackney and we need to use a third-party service to drive our hearse as we have no room at the moment to park a car securely. With the new facility, we'll be able to store the coffins on-site and have our own vehicle which will result in far less waiting time for distressed families. I would, however, add that due to the bulkiness of coffins, this specific point regarding storage of coffins would only become possible for us with the proposed first-floor storage area being granted as well. Otherwise, we still have to store all these coffins in Hackney and have them delivered which can often cause considerable waiting time. The proposed building also allows for a respectable indoor family room. I say indoor because currently all we have is approximately one square meter internally which is nowhere insufficient when there are more than one or two people who come to see their deceased family members. The only other option they have is to wait outside until we be ready for them and it has happened frequently when the weather is as it has been this afternoon. Not pleasant for anybody, especially somebody who is grieving. Bearing in mind that no neighbours have voiced any objection to either application, I would ask you to consider the application for this communal facility favorably and I am happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you. Any questions? Councillor Roberts. Just wanted to check on one thing and I appreciate you may not be able to go back for 80 years but have there been any complaints, issues from local residents about what is carried out as a very sad but necessary service? Does that attract any adverse attention from local people? There has been no complaints over the 30 years that I am aware of. We are a very discreet site which some of you may have seen or noticed when we are on site today. We don't advertise, we don't go around. If I may take the liberty of just adding to the last question that the Chair asked Councillor Prager earlier regarding why there may not have been any comments for approval as well as none for objection, that would normally be because with a communal project like this people would drum up support and get many people commenting pro or against. We specifically did not go around telling people that we were doing this because we are a discreet site. I myself, until I joined the organization, didn't know where this site was and I've lived in Barnet within a 5 or 10 minute drive of this site my entire life. people don't know where we are. People on Alexandra Road don't actually know exactly what is in there. We like it that way that's how it's supposed to be because the nature of what we do from a religious point of view is to be discreet and respectful to the deceased and their families which is also why as I said we didn't drum up any support which we could quite easily have done but chose not to. Any other questions? I'd just like to ask you about you've got two applications in here one for the single storey and one with a small second storey so both are recommended for refusal so if we are minded to approve presumably you would prefer to have the bigger one with the two storeys I mean what difference would it make if you only had one storey rather than the two storeys? So the additional storage we'd gain on the first floor would allow I mentioned the coffins for example so on the picture that Mr. Weider showed earlier sorry well he didn't don't think he showed the picture but we have a picture of the coffin storage area that we have in Hackney it's a room probably about two thirds of this size which is where they're stored just the nature of coffins is their bulkiness and that would allow us to store additional items on the first floor which we would not be able to if we didn't have the first floor we've got more storage than we'll have now with just the ground floor but it wouldn't give us everything that we need so the single storey would still provide you with what you need but the coffins would need to be continue to be coming from Hackney it would give us additional storage but we would still need to have those delivered and bearing in mind the nature as we said earlier the religious side of things the respect for the deceased from our point of view is that they should be buried as soon as possible that often results in huge waiting times due to traffic just to bring the coffins over so we can move things along if we had them on site we'd be able to move far quicker thank you any further questions no thank you very much thank you any questions for the officers or comments yes Councillor Conway you mentioned that it's visually obtrusive and overbearing yet the seven houses next to this property all have a two storey with a pitched roof building from Berlin the next nine houses after that have a three to four storey with a pitched roof straight after that as we mentioned numerous times and including myself no one knows the building's there it's on a private road it's gated no one knows about it I myself besides being the local councillor here I'm also a head teacher just up the road unfortunately we've needed to use the services of the Chavik Risha numerous times over the last handful of years and yet I did not still did not know where it was until this application came in the differences that this would make are absolutely minute being that all the residents in Hendon but especially on Alexandria Road and I hope none are here now but they like to moan quite often not one person has mentioned anything in regards to this the ones who know it's there support it the ones who don't know it's there don't know it's there because of the way they work and this is only going to make it quieter and easier for them and therefore I really don't understand the reasons of why anyone would think this is visually obtrusive or overbearing in any way so just to the specific point of the reason refusal of character I'm taking so I mean the officer's officer's assessment is set out and full in the report the reason for refusal relating to character which is what I think the councillor is specifically referring to and the point about the surrounding houses yes of course it is noted there are two story houses with outriggers around the site but it is it's sort of axiomatic that the usual pattern of development and form of the built environment is to have the main two story dwelling house at the front fronting the streets and then towards the back the open space the gardens and the lower level single story outbuildings for that reason the two story development considering the specific context of the site nestled amongst at least on three sides these residential gardens and residential properties it was considered the two part single part two story proposal would be out of character with the prevailing pattern of development out of character even though it's surrounded by Belle Lane school which is two stories to three stories to four stories and then surrounded by the council estates just up the road tonight so out of character it can't be because it's surrounded by taller buildings in the same position and outbuilding here is in line with the Belle Lane schools so how it's out of character I just really don't understand any further any further comments questions right so we'll go to a vote now we're taking the vote on both of these applications separately so on the first one item 6 that's 250111 FUL this is for the single storey building the officers are recommending refusal all those in favour of refusal all those who don't agree with the refusal that's all so as we are minded to approve this application I believe this will need to come back to the next meeting to have a formal decision on it so I didn't think we had to now because it has to come back we're not actually to make a decision we're just minded to refuse and therefore it has to come back for a vote decision next time all right okay right I can just explain that one of you so if the committee are minded to approve then someone needs to raise a motion it needs to be seconded and planning reasons given and then it can be deferred to come back for the next meeting to enable re-notification yes motion motion that we are minded to approve yeah minded to approve the application and the reasons and the reasons of this is not obstructive and it's not overbearing as stated in the officers report seconded yeah I mean I'd like to add to that of the benefit to the local community as well yeah communal benefit yeah absolutely so sorry just a question so is this a new thing that we can't approve that now does it have to come back to another meeting okay yes seems a bit wasted time it does but yes it's something that's in our constitution so it does need to okay so that motion is before us are we are we agreeing with that motion that we're minded to approve all those in favour so this deferred to the next meeting for a formal decision and moving on to the next item 250110 FUL this is a similar application but with the partial second story on the top the officers again are recommending refusal all those in support of the officers recommendation for refusal and those again who are minded to approve that's all so again councillor Simberg would you like the same reasons I guess the same set of recommendations yeah councillor Kallick second again so if we can vote on that that we are minded to approve this and if we defer to the next meeting that's all so both those applications that people understand that they were recommended for refusal but as the committee is minded to approve them the committee does not agree with the recommendation for refusal they need to come back to the next meeting for a formal decision on approval so we are minded to approve but we have not formally approved it at this time thank you very much all those who are here for that one and we are moving on now to item 10 the garage blocks at Anastasia Mews sorry yeah I'm not a member of the planning committee and I apologise for coming back I didn't understand this to be the process at all I've sat on one planning committee in my tenure as a local councillor and this does sound is this a change in the constitution it sounds quite clumsy but this is was it a constitutional change it's come up several times what happens in the interim do officers go back it'll come back it'll be heard again next time so I think one of the things is that because the officers recommended this for refusal people may have thought it was going to be refused if anybody wants to come forward to speak or to raise comments about it against it being approved it gives them a chance to do that I think that's one of the ideas of that thank you for the clarification and thank you for your time right so and the stadium use thank you chair this application is for the demolition of some existing blocks of garages and their replacement with a two-story building with rooms on the roof for five flats this is the location plan so these two rows of garages here this is Finchley Lodge main building on the main road here another block of flats here another block of flats here Anastasia Mews is a small development of seven houses built in about 2010 this is an aerial view this is the block of garages here and another view from the rear so this is them here you can see the relationship to Finchley Lodge here and a belt of trees many sycamore trees along the rear boundary of Finchley Lodge and these are the dwellings within Anastasia Mews some site photographs existing site plan so two blocks of garages the proposed ground floor plan which shows a ground floor to contain two flats three parking spaces at the front to serve the new units the two ground floor units here will have their own private amenity space with the communal area at the rear for the remainder of the flats and you can see the relationship with number seven Anastasia Mews with a slight projection forward of the block the nearest point of the block here as you can see there is a staggering along the front elevations of Anastasia Mews to the rear again a very slight projection at ground floor beyond the rear elevation but the first floor is level so this is the proposed first floor so it's no further rearward on this point than number seven and the proposed second floor so looking at the elevations this part of the site has been kept low to minimise any overbearing impact on the residents of Finchley Lodge so that's the appearance in the front this is number seven about 0.7 metres higher than Anastasia Mews but again they are progressively higher than each other but because the site slopes down from Finchley Lodge down to the bottom of Anastasia Mews and that's the proposed street scene which shows this so you can see how much higher Finchley Lodge is and the rear elevation that's the side elevation facing seven Anastasia Mews these are all windows serving non-habitable rooms or secondary windows and therefore they can all be obscure glazed and this is the elevation facing Finchley Lodge again these windows can be obscure glazed and that's a small roof light within the sloping roof and the section to show the ceiling heights so the key considerations are that the replacement of garages for residential is acceptable in principle officers consider the proposal has an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and the neighbours amenity three off street parking spaces is considered to be sufficient by highways officers concerns related about potential impacts on trees are addressed by the conditions about tree protection and method statement and recommended for approval thank you thank you we have a speaker on this Lisa Pluto if you'd like to come forward and put the microphone on so you can see a face button to press that's it yeah and you have three minutes to speak and be given a warning when you have one minute left my name's Lisa good evening everyone I'm speaking on behalf of over 30 residents that have objected against this planning and I hope these objections have been taken into consideration there's already overdevelopment of the site there are too many residents in a small area Finchley Lodge have already added another floor of flats to the roof of the building and not provided parking new resident vehicles cars motorbikes would increase traffic and pollution overburden on local facilities loss of 23 parking spaces from the demolition of the two garage blocks that belong and are allocated to the adjoining Finchley Lodge flats in Gainsborough Road where all these residents park I also believe that the legal owners of these garages at Finchley Lodge have not been notified applicant of this development the notification process is an important part of the planning process which means there may have been a breach there's no proposed site plan which has been provided showing where the drainage will be located this is a significant factor as currently the area has critical drainage problems which has been highlighted to Thames Water the current manholes pose an environmental problem Finchley Lodge foul sewage runs to garages and turns between driveway 12 to 14 Holden Road and overflows from manholes in front drives if this goes ahead new drainage to be provided to be running through to Gainsborough Road and there's also a wall between number 7 Anastasia Mews and the garages which forms a boundary the resident at number 7 has children and two pet dogs what plans are in place this will need to remain as the resident is very concerned parking facilities are already at a maximum in the area including the existing garages the removal of these will mean you have one minute remaining the removal of these will mean a massive overspill in neighbouring residents parking bays and possible double parking and blocking access including emergency service access and creating issues on a very single narrow winding lane there's also children that play on the front lawns and it may pose a risk to their safety also deliveries loading and unloading will be an issue how will the vehicles turn as the road is too narrow for two way traffic there's also a loss of privacy from the outlook of windows and I believe that's it thank you questions councillor roberts yeah I wonder if you can test it are you aware of how many of those garages are used for parking of vehicles I believe all 23 are used sorry 23 parking garages are used are they used for parking vehicles yes they're all in regularly because vehicles are going in and out yes they're not being used for storage no thank you from anyone yeah thank you very much thank you and we now have the agent gareth stockbridge i have here thank you again if you can put the microphone on that's it you have three minutes to speak thank you good evening my name is gareth stockbridge of stewart henley and partners and i'm the agent for the application throughout the application process we have engaged with the local authority this includes a pre-application submission which proposed six flats over a larger envelope the responses received from the planning department during the pre-app have been followed and the scheme redesigned prior to the formal submission of the planning application during the course of the planning application itself the applicant commissioned a survey which contacted local properties within the area that survey produced 33 comments of support the main issue being the benefit of the loss of the unsightly buildings from the area we believe that the policies of the local authority have been fully complied with and fully agree with the planning officer's recommendation for approval thank you thank you questions councillor barnes thank you the objector made some comments about drainage do you have any drainage problems we're not aware of any drainage problems at the moment obviously the site at the moment has only got garages on it so that will be fully investigated and dealt with with the authorities and building control I note that highways have no objection to do with parking but we have heard that these garages are at moment used for parking cars so it's where those cars will be using the high road I guess instead the extra parking that will be taken up for that I wonder if you could comment on that yeah from our experience and many site visits the garages are not in full time use we believe that the majority of them are used for storage and a site visit will indicate that there are vegetation growth in front of the doors it's clearly not used for garaging every day I would also like to ask about there are three parking spaces in front of this when we went to the site visit today in a minibus we drove down the minibus managed to turn around by backing into the space between the garages to then drive out so I wonder if you could comment on the turning circle access to not only cars that may be using that going up and down but delivery vehicles refuse vehicles and so on who may be using that and if there's an adequate turning circle there for them to turn yeah we believe there is an adequate turning for the cars from the parking spaces using the 6m zone in front of the buildings itself and then they'll turn in that area and come onto to the properties that go down into Anastasia Mews because if that gate is closed and they can't get in anyway there'll be a similar thing going on with the delivery vehicles but the 6m zone in between the parking area can be used for turning arc for delivery vehicles as well should it be needed thank you any further questions thank you very much questions to the officers comments don't know if you could comment any further on that access and turning for cars accessing that well the three spaces at the front do have 6m between them which is the measurement that highways always look at and show that someone can drive into a space and reverse out so people could come down here and reverse into the spaces and drive out in a forward direction or they could drive in and obviously still back out and then be able to go forward to to the to the area will be open it's not going to be gated like Anastasia means so presumably vans can go down there for deliveries at the moment so that for a smaller vehicle that would still be the situation and the highways officers have no objection to the layout in terms of parking or access okay thank you no further comments or questions we go to the vote on this one the officers are recommending approval to all those in favour of approval that's all so this application has been approved thank you and we move on to the next item which is 88 West Heath Road all right okay so this application relates to demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new building comprising six flats sites on the corner of West Heath Road and Eden Close and comprises a large attached dwelling heavily screened by mature vegetation surrounding area features a number of redevelopments in a more contemporary flat roof design including number 4 West Over Hill that's up here the new Overn development which is this big site at the back there's our site here that provides assisted living units and which has a similar relationship to properties on Eden Close at the rear and again the development opposite the current application site which we saw this morning this is number 81 West Heath Road the site itself sits behind two tall trees subject to preservation orders and comprises a large largely two-story dwelling situated toward the rear of the curtilage the building sits close to the rear of the site which is in turn screened by a row of trees sitting in the adjacent property it's slightly angular photo but you can see the tree line here we walked down this path behind the house this morning there are significant level changes in the area with the property at number one Eden Close which is behind here sitting substantially higher and whilst number 90 West Heath Drive to the west sits at a lower level the private community space is currently in front of the house with a raised platform area overlooking the common boundary the proposed footprint and building envelope have therefore been conceived with these constraints in mind massing the building away from the common boundary opposite the flank elevation of number 90 which is up here and maintaining the screen planting to all sides forming a sequence of staggered terraces here and recessing the footprint the topmost floor sorry which together with a change in the materials helps to articulate and further break down the building these comparison drawings you can just about see here the pink bit represents the existing they demonstrate a little difference in the height of the main part of the building save for the additional contrasting story which in turn remains well below the ridge height of the property to the rear this is number one even close here this is the rear elevation and the pink part corresponds to the rearmost part of the existing building so the building does also extend across here but this section as in the existing floor plan sits further away from the boundary with the courtyard retained in front of it and it will continue to benefit from screen planting which stands in the neighboring property the terraced side elevation places the bulk of the building to the rear of the adjoining property roughly in line with the existing building with screening to the immediate spaces and obscuration of windows secured by way of condition the proposed scheme would provide six flats comprising four three bed family sized units and further two bed units at second floor level together with a green roof which forms part of a comprehensive landscaping scheme that provides it protects existing mature trees and delivers biodiversity net gain above the required 10% scheme incorporates basement level parking in accordance with the standards of the development plan and will be subject to section 106 agreement to restrict the right to access further parking permits some concern has been raised by the inclusion of a basement and as such an assessment to consider the hydrological and geotechnical impact has been reserved by way of condition the scheme incorporates stable drainage strategy and on that basis is recommended for approval thank you don't have any speaking on this one so just have the agent Nicholas James thank you if you like switch the microphone on that's it you have three minutes to speak can you speak a bit of warning when you have one minute left good evening thank you my name is Nicholas James I'm the agent of the application thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the application for the redevelopment of 88 West Heath Road the application proposes the replacement of a two storey detached dwelling with a well designed high quality policy development of six residential apartments the proposal has evolved through detailed engagement with the planning officers and has responded comprehensively to feedback received in two pre-application meetings in two pre-application meetings in these meetings the principal development along with the massing and the footprint of the proposed development has been agreed the design includes features to minimize any impact on neighbors in terms of separation distances and overlooking the development has been designed with the massing to the west as a ziggurat form with setbacks on each floor shifting the buildings massing away from the neighboring property at number 90 West Heath Road further features include a setback at the top floor level on all elevations with a greater setback on the rear elevation planted privacy screens to the terraced private amenities spaces on the western elevation projecting privacy fins to direct views away from number one eating close and orio windows to restrict views towards number one eating close and number 90 West Heath Road there is an uplifting footprint on the site which is appropriate for the size of the site and its context while still providing for appropriate separation distance and extensive amenity areas at ground floor level in addition to extensive landscaping at the front of the site ground floor apartments each benefit from over a hundred square meters of private garden space regarding the trees on the site every tree surveyed including the two subject to tree preservation orders will be retained the predicted route protection zones of the trees have guided the setting out the proposed basement level and to further safeguard the future of TPO tree to a cantilever structural solution to minimize distance disturbance the ground and potential routes will be used with the tree officer through the pre-application process the development includes highly sustainable features including secure cycle parking PV panels air source heat pumps green roofs and use of highly efficient high quality robust building materials and finishes we note that there have been comments raised in relation to potential flooding and the construction of the basement on the site we would like to highlight that the site is located in a flood zone one which indicates the lowest risk of flooding the development also includes a landscaping strategy which is to incorporate permeable surfaces green roofs and water butts to reduce water runoff if approved a condition will also be attached to the permission outlying the requirement to submit a basement construction method statement before construction can commence this statement will take into account the site specific soil conditions of the property and ensures a safe and effective method of excavating and structuring the basement without impact on neighboring properties in summary this is a highly sustainable carefully considered proposal that makes efficient use of a previously developed site and contributes family sized homes including four three bedroom dwellings I'm also joined by Daniel Morris That's time, thank you That's time, thank you And James Rawlinson of Borkland Tree Consultants should members have any further questions Thank you Thank you Any questions? No, it doesn't look like we have any questions for you at all Let me explain that properly Thank you Thank you So comments or questions of the officers, I just wondered if the officers could show about the difference in height between the existing building and what's proposed and how that might affect a neighboring building on West Heath Road and number one even close behind Yeah, so here this is the comparison front elevation so this is the West Heath Road frontage so this is number 90 The pink is the outline of existing building so it's roughly the same as the main part of the building and then there's one additional story on top of that You do need to appreciate this drawing within the context of the side elevation So it's tiered away from the front and where number 90 sits is basically about here So all of the building mass on the near side is offset from the elevation but it's not opposite the elevation which does have windows in it And then this part of the building is some distance away on the other side So you you won't even see the bottom part from within number 90 certainly not ground uh downstairs anyway And then at the rear the house at the rear is is higher but also oriented 90 degrees from the main building from the proposed building Thank you Councillor Roberts I just want to check what's the the square meters of the the open green rooms As a percentage of the of the whole roof area Uh that I do not know it's basically Uh these these two areas so this is this is the roof Uh this is a terrace terrace terrace Yes So this part is the roof So it's it's not a not an enormous percentage of the roof but it is in conjunction with all of the other Uh removal and replacement of hard servicing and other uh elements of the landscaping scheme across the site as a whole So I mean straight answer to the question I don't know but I'd say 20-25 percent something like that And those green spaces allocated to certain properties certain flats Well the terraces are part of the individual properties and then some of the ground floor areas in order to safeguard the privacy of the occupiers um is not going to be communally held Okay Okay any further questions or comments No we will go to the vote on this the officers are recommending approval all those in favour of the officers recommendation to approve That's all so this application is approved Thank you very much and we move on to the last item 34 Tenderston Gardens Thank you Thank you The application is for extensions to a single family dwelling house at 34 Tenderston Gardens That's the site location plans detached property An aerial view And view from the rear And that's a view from the street So this is the property here as you'll see from the report and the slides A first floor extension is proposed in this area here And some of the site photographs at the rear showing their relationships with number 36 to the right and number 32 to the left So these are the existing and proposed ground floor So this is the current proposal So at ground floor level it's essentially an extension at the rear Which varies between three metres deep on this side and four metres deep on this side The existing garage is also to be converted into a habitable room Replacing the garage door with a window At first floor level So this is the existing The proposal is to build as I say a first floor above the existing garage area Which projects to the same depth as the existing first floor at the right On the right at the rear And the proposed loft plan The proposal includes substantial works to the roof So this is the existing front elevation with a single storey garage This is the proposed So this is the new first floor side extension The existing roof is also to be raised in height And to have gables provided at either side And the rear elevation So you've got the new gable roof here And a rear dormer window So the first floor extension is in this part of the site This is the single storey rear at the back here And these are the proposed right side elevation Where you can see again the increase in the roof And the dormer window And the gable end replacing the existing hip roofs And that's the existing left side And that's the proposed 3D view If I can just go back briefly to the site location plan You can see the angle of the boundary Between number 34 and 36 is angled At the point where it goes beyond the existing rear elevation So going back to the ground floor plan There is shown to be a gap of 0.6 metres Between the ground floor extension and the boundary But clearly this can't actually take place Because the boundary is angled So there we have a gap of 0.6 at this point But then the angle of the boundary is such That the gap to the boundary in fact Will be reduced at the rear part of the site As you can see the recommendation is for refusal Officers have concerns about the impact of The cumulative extensions at ground and first level Level on number 36 Which is at a lower level If I just go back to the photograph So that's the property here Which has got these large semi-circular bay windows And the extension at ground floor Will come 4.8 metres beyond the rear elevation At this point of the property at number 36 Given its height of 3.2 metres And a difference of about 1 foot 0.3 metres in ground level Between the application site and 36 Officers consider that the cumulative impact Would be unacceptable in this case And the second reason for refusal Relates to the appearance of the extensions So the first floor extension is up to the boundary At the side which doesn't comply with the design guidance It doesn't have a subordinate roof In fact the whole roof is raised And obviously the imposition of these two gables And the large width rear dormer Officers consider again to be an overdevelopment of the site And cumulatively will have a significant impact On the character and appearance of the property And its appearance within the wider street scene Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you We don't have any objectors So we have the applicant, Sean Green Thank you Chair, before my time starts And with your permission May I circulate some visuals to help me Yes That's right Thank you Thank you So when you're ready You have three minutes to speak You've given a warning But you have one minute left Thank you Thank you And honoured council members I am the owner of the 34 Tenterton Gardens I have lived in Barnard for 13 years And moved to Tenterton in December 2023 Where I live with my wife And three beautiful girls Aged five, three and eight months This is our forever home And our motivations are driven by that For a growing family family. I would like to address the concerns raised by Ms. Palmer in her report and thank her for her diligence in this matter. I respectfully disagree with some of the concerns raised in the report that the development is detrimental to the character and appearance of the property and the neighborhood for the following three reasons. Firstly, and I draw your attention to exhibit A, which is the map. You can see there is simply no uniformity on the street in terms of style, aesthetics, footprints or roofing patterns. If anything, one can see that the other houses in the surrounding neighborhood, some of them have gabled roofs. This is acknowledged in the actual report as well, so there is precedent. Second, I draw your attention to the street views in exhibit B. I have not selected random houses, but rather adjacent neighbors all lined up in a row. As you can see, each house has its own unique character and roofing style. For instance, number 26, which is exhibit B1, has a large footprint as well, and number 36, which is B3, where the apex of the roof is disproportionately higher than the rest of the houses going up the hill. I should also highlight that from the road view, the footprint of number 36 is not too dissimilar from the renovations that we are trying to achieve. Third, and probably most relevant, I don't understand how there is a perceived loss of outlook, light and sense of enclosure. You have one minute remain. Thank you. As you can see in C1, exhibit C1, which is a picture taken at sunset when the sun obviously is lower, there is still unfettered light access. In C2, you can see that number 36 has no side windows on their side, and we in turn will have no side windows and aisles to disrupt their privacy. This is a similar situation, as you can see, between 32 and 34. And then, as you can also see, between 32 and 34, and exhibit C3, that any first floor side extension would not obstruct our neighbor's view. In summary, and addressing these three key issues of roofing, property character, and the viewing access, there are reasons to approve this application based on precedent, proportionality, and complementary aesthetics to the overall value of the neighborhood. I respectfully request the Council to support these reasons to approve my petition. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Councillor Barnes? Can I just ask if you did consult with the planning officers before finalising your plans? That's a good question. No, I did not. Under the advisement of my architect, we went ahead with the plans. We did not anticipate pushback, and there indeed was a neighbor complaint, but we should have respectfully consulted with them first, and I think in hindsight, had the planning agents approached the neighbors now, they would have been in favor of it. It just required a conversation with a bit more sensitivity to their needs. Any more questions? I would just like to say, it's not a question, but a comment. At the site visit today, we met your eight-month-old daughter, who has the most beautiful smile. Oh, thank you. He's a lovely child, who may feel very welcome. Thank you. Thank you for that. If there's no more questions, thank you very much. Thank you. And then move on to any questions or comments for the officers? Councillor Conway. Just really questions based on the – really, that was highlighted in the presentation. I'm also just on Google Earth now, and you can see just every single house has a different roof. Every single house has got a different design. And therefore, to give a reason based on not fitting the area, I just don't understand it, because you can see on there, you can see from the pictures in this exhibit, you can see just on Google Earth, as well as going on site, that all the surrounding houses, especially 26, 30, and then all the ones leading up to 34, all completely different. I would just comment that the vast majority of houses in the streets still retain their hipped roofs. So, obviously, gabling them – I mean, the other issue here is the first floor extension. This house, for example, has got a first floor side extension, but it's set well back. It's got a subordinate roof, and it retains the hips. Whereas here, we're going to be infilling the gap here, so there's not a two-metre gap between first floors. And when you take that into account with also putting the gable in, again, it's very different to this property here. That's next to a single-storey bungalow. But on the other side of the road, again, they're all very – they may all be slightly different styles, but they do all retain their hipped roofs. And where you have got some kind of extension, they do tend to be set back and subordinate, which is not the case in the current proposal. How – what is different between this and 34 – and 26, sorry. Which one is 26? This one? The huge grey one. That, as I understand it, was a pair – was it one – well, one house that originally had gable ends. So, in fact, the extension here – again, look, it's a completely different relationship with this neighbour because this is a bungalow that's already projecting rearwards of that property in terms of any extension. But also, I think the extension to the roof didn't change the front of the roof or the sides in that they were already gabled. And there's only one other property, I believe, with a gable in this road, and that was one that was carried out as permitted development. In this particular case, the volume of the extensions – of the roof extensions alone is over 80 cubic metres, which is significantly greater than could be achieved under permitted development. But back to the street scene. Impact to the street scene, then it's practically no different between 34 and 26 or any of the other surrounding houses that are higher up. Maybe from a bird's-eye view, there's a slight difference whether it's gable or whether it's not gable, which thing. But practically from the front view of the street scene, I can't see why this is any different to the many different houses up on the road. I think the one with the grey roof, 36, is a very different style house, which I'm not sure that – I mean, I don't know its history, how long it's been there, how long it's been like that. But just because there's one in a street that doesn't really fit in doesn't mean we should then allow all the others in the street to have a similar type of or appearance of extension. We're trying to maintain the original character of the vast majority of the houses in that street. Precedents, though, if there's a house that's completely different that has either has planning permission or no one went to, you know, to say they've done it illegally. So it is precedents, being that it's just two houses up there, next to a small bungalow, which it's dwarfed over. Again, permissions that may have been granted historically are not – we don't – they're not – it's not a precedent to approve something now which doesn't comply with our guidance and which officers consider does have an unacceptable harm. The presence of one in a street is not a reason to approve many others if there are other considerations. Okay. Thank you. Any further comments or questions? No. So if we go to the votes, then the officers are recommending a refusal on this application. All those in favor of the officers' recommendation for refusal? That's four. And all those who are minded not to refuse? Two. So that application is refused. Thank you. That's the last application of tonight's agenda. As this is the last meeting of this planning committee before the council AGM next week, thank you all very much. I believe there may be some changes in the committee following next week's AGM. So thank you all very much for being on the committee so far. Thank you to the officers for the support you've given.