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.