Transcript

Transcript

If you introduce yourself, you have three minutes to speak, and you'll be given a warning when you have one minute left Thank you. I'm Michael Levitsky, Ravensdale Avenue Residents Association and the Finchley Society. I ask the committee to defer a decision on this application on the grounds that you require more information. We shouldn't be here at all. Thank you. I'm Michael Levitsky, Adrian. I asked the committee to defer to the committee to the committee to the committee, and we have a plan to give you an idea of the plan. Their design and access statement is a piece of codswallop. Over the past year, every other applicant before you has presented applications based on the emerging plan or the new plan. I don't know why Gerald haven't updated their documents since 2023. Are they lazy? And why haven't planners picked up on this for over a year? If this application is approved, why should any future applicant bother to present the application? Why haven't planners picked up on this for over a year? If this application is approved, why should any future applicant bother to present a valid planning case. There's a second reason to defer a decision. You need information about the council's contract with Jolt. This unit will harm the amenity of the high road. It's in a congested area among historic buildings, matured trees, and street clutter. Jolt will tell you tonight this harm is compensated. Advertising revenue means they can subsidize low-cost charging, and this will boost uptake of EVs among those who cannot charge at home. This argument fails badly. The advertising unit could easily be in a less harmful location and serve the same purpose. But their argument also requires more information. What prevents Jolt from raising tariffs, which would remove the benefits for those without home charging? What does Jolt's contract with the council say? Do you trust Jolt to tell you tonight not to worry, everything's fine, just as everything is fine with their applications under the 2012 plan? You can't condition this one decision on low-cost charging because that may conflict with Jolt's contract for all its charges. You don't have enough information about Jolt's main justification for their advertising screens. You need this to assess the planning balance. Frankly, I think what Jolt's doing is a mockery to the planning system. It's a mockery to the community, and it's a mockery to the committee. You have an applicant who's presented a case under a plan which is no longer valid. I rest my case. I'd like to be glad to answer any questions about the specifics of this application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Levitsky. So are you objecting to electric vehicle charges completely, or is your objection just that this hasn't been processed properly? Thank you. No one is a greater supporter of electric vehicles than I am. I am a great supporter of that. I am a great activist on climate change and all those issues. What I object to is electrical vehicle charges attached to screens, which use as much electricity in a year as four homes. Is that how we combat climate change? Do you know 400 homes for the 100 units that they're installing in Barnet? Fine. If you think that's the best way to deal with the climate crisis, install energy-hungry EV charges. But I'm a great supporter of EVs, and I believe these units could be located in better locations just outside the town centers. But they want to put them in the town centers. Why? Because they're basically an advertising company. They're putting them where the footfall is greatest. The code for this in the officer's report is high attraction rate. This is advertising, not EV charging. That's why I oppose it. Thank you, Mr. Levitsky. With regard to that, you heard both Katzenberg and myself asking and expecting councillors to be consulted on this before sites are selected so that we can take these more into account. So we are up with that. Any further questions from Mr. Levitsky, Ms. councillor Simba? A question regarding, you've mentioned that this is based on 2012 planning rules. You've obviously looked at that. Can you tell me just very quickly, very briefly, the difference between what the applicant has said in terms of 2012 and what will be current? We have a new local plan. It's completely different from the previous plan in many respects, as you know better than I do. So how can you come to this committee, present you with a design and access statement based upon the 2012 plan? You should be laughing them out of court, not approving their applications. I mean, I don't know if the local newspaper would be interested in this, but I think it's really quite amusing, frankly, because I prepared a case here where I had a unit presented by a ferry. Why? Because under the 1904 local plan for Neverland, the charges must be presented by fairies. If you accept this application, you will accept an argument based upon the Neverland local plan for 1904. It is ridiculous. Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Levitsky. And now we have any further questions and comments to the officers. I think we'd like to hear a little bit more about the local plan as it applies to this, Mr. Levitsky's comments on that. Yeah, so I refer the members to the addendum, which responds to the email which was received earlier today. It doesn't really matter whether the applicant has cited the previous local plan. Frequently, a lot of design access statements and planning statements don't refer to planning policy at all. What matters is that the case officer or the LPA have undertaken the assessment based on the correct planning framework and that is set out correctly in the report. Whether or not, or why it's not been updated or whether or not it should be updated, that's a matter for the applicant, but it doesn't affect the assessment that's been made. It's also inherent in the applications that they accept that there is advertising as part of the proposal, hence there's a separate advertisement consent application that's been made. The question is whether or not both of those elements, the infrastructure and the advert, are appropriate for their location in terms of their siting and matters of public safety, and that's been assessed again in the report. And it's a decision to be made on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, I can't talk about the contract between the council and JOLT because that's nothing to do with the local planning authority, even though they are in some respects the same thing. But even if planning commission is granted, a lot of things or some things that the objectors are referring to, they're covered by other regulatory frameworks, principally the public charge point regulations, that's what I was trying to get through, which includes governance over issues such as pricing transparency. And those things are outside of the scope of the planning application that we're here to determine now, but they are enforceable under alternative regulations. Thank you. Any further questions to the officers or comments on this? Any further questions? So again, we have two applications here that we're going to vote for. The first one is, I think it's number 2257 for the EV charging. All those in favour? For and against one. One. And the second one for the advertising panel. All those in favour? For and against one. So that application has also been approved. Thank you very much. And we move on to 12 to 18 High Road. And the proposal is for use of the basement and ground floor as class E office and retail. It is located in East Finchley Town Centre. So here in the aerial view, you can see this is the site. So there are two buildings already. It has been built. Original permission was given for 24 flats with in the front block at the ground floor and basement. It was for office. There is no parking approved. With section 106 residential parking was restricted. Only two parking was proposed that approved at that time. One for the disabled and another for car club. You can see that each underground station is just opposite. The area is with very high public transport accessibility. And this is the building which is built. But since it was built, the ground floor and the basement is empty. So this is the basement and ground floor. You can see which has been proposed to use. Initially it was proposed to use as broader use class E. Then we consulted our environmental health officer. And also there was concern from the community that the broader use class E cannot be accommodated and if it is not purposefully built. That's why like we restricted the use to office use, financial professional services and retail. This is the original permission. This is a later section 106 variation application. It was variation only to introduce at the back change the administration and change the side boundary lines of neighbouring properties. And this is the proposed ground floor. So there is no external change or any other changes. This is proposed lower ground floor. So the key considerations is the proposal will re-provide employment generating use under class E. It will contribute to the vitality of town centre. It will create active street frontage. The proposed use would be restricted by condition to only use as retail, financial professional use and office. Subject to condition is not going to impact our neighbouring amenity. So we are imposing condition for opening hours and restrict delivery times. During the course of the application, we consulted highways. Also there was concern regarding delivery vehicle. So the agent provided an updated delivery and service plan, which was reviewed by highway officers who considered it to be satisfactory. And they were satisfied that retail use can be accommodated at this site. So we are recommending this proposal for approval subject to condition. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. We have no objection to speaking on this, but we have Councillor Moore, who is one of the East Ministry councillors. So, yep, thank you, Ellie, if you put the microphone on as usual. And I know you're used to this, but I'll just say you'll have introduced yourself, you'll have three minutes to speak and be given a warning when you have one minute left. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. I am Councillor Alison Moore, East Vinci Ward Councillor. And before I start, I just wanted to make a note that some of the objectors don't appear to have been notified or given an opportunity to speak. I don't know what the technical aspects of that are, but I just thought I'd say it. I want to first note the response to some of the residents' concerns on noise and disturbance that has been made, limiting the hours of opening and use, limiting the hours of delivery and dispatching. However, I think there are a number of concerns that remain for local residents. I'd remind members, as you saw from the presentation about the site, this is on a busy East Finching High Road, no delivery vehicle space in front of the building, and relatively narrow part of the highway because of the pedestrian crossing facilities across to the tube. Thus, even though the hours of delivery have been limited, there is still real concern about the impact of vehicle movements and deliveries crossing the pavement and that those were still impact on traffic, pedestrian safety, and possibly on bus and cycle movements on that road. There are further concerns for some about vehicles potentially using local residential roads before 9am and preparing to deliver at 9 o'clock. Secondly, there are also concerns about how waste will be dealt with. The addition of bins on the pavement is a real issue. Residents in the East Finchley town team have been challenging and working with officers about the mess, the fly tipping and the overflowing bins elsewhere on the high road. Therefore, there are concerns about problems on this site, depending on the use that it's put to. Not least exacerbated by the slopes. If you have Paladin bins on a slope on the pavement and juxtaposition to a pedestrian crossing, there's a real concern about the impact on pedestrian space and safety. Thank you. But also, actually, on the environmental health aspects of monitoring that, I think you need a strong waste management contract in place. There's also, of course, the adjacent cafe on which it will also have an impact. So, the summary of the concerns that remain is the impact of delivery on traffic, possible public transport and cyclists and road and pedestrian safety, the impact possibly on neighbouring roads, the possibility that refuse bins on the pavements create a hazard and a nuisance and a problem for pedestrians. And finally, while on paper there is a delivery and service plan and the hours are limited for both delivery and use, the history of the site means that there is limited trust amongst residents. They're sceptical about how this would operate. And there are also concerns that different hours may be sought in future once the principle is established. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I would like to ask you, and I'll say I'm also an East Ministry Councillor, as I've said before. I didn't declare an interest because I haven't communicated with anybody about this. Councillor Moore called this in and has dealt with local people herself. But, of course, I know some of the concerns. What I was going to ask was, do you know if there would be any use for it as an office rather than which local residents want rather than a shop? Has there been any interest in using it as offices? Are you aware of that? No, I'm not particularly aware of any uses. I mean, there has been discussion in the distant past about both that and its adjacent site and issues around whether it would have been suitable, for example, for a doctor surgery. But honestly, I don't, nobody has raised usage with me specifically. They're more concerned about the impact of the proposed usage. At the moment you say no, it's boarded up. It's not used. It's inviting graffiti and all other kinds of things because it's not being used. Oh, I think, absolutely. And I think that that is, that is true. And I think there was scepticism about the proposal around office space used before. But people were, I think, a little sceptical about whether that would be used. But clearly, a ground floor usage around any kind of development is a really important one. But it has to be the right development and the right usage for the site. Thank you. The councillor colleague had a question. Thank you. I'm not sure whether you'll be able to answer this, to be honest with you. But how long has the building been up and running? And that's why I'm not sure you can answer it. And also, what impact do you think having the ground floor boarded up for as long as the building's been there has had on the area? I would have to go back to my notes to talk about how long it has been there. It's been quite a controversial block. And there were pauses at various stages during the development, principally because of concerns about the rear of the building and its proximity to the gardens of the houses at the rear and a dispute over the boundary side and also about fenestration. So it has been up and running in its current form for a while. But this has obviously been boarded up and it doesn't help the street scene. And of course, nobody wants to see boarded up buildings on what is hopefully an active town centre. If I could say on that, as Councillor Moore said, it's quite a complex thing around this. It went to appeal. So the appeal was only granted in September 2024. So it's only had legal planning permission for the whole site since September 2024. No, thanks very much. Any questions for the officers? I'm very sorry, Mr. Kemsley. You try not to forget you. So again, there's a face symbol if you press to put the microphone on. That's it. And then if you introduce yourself, you have three minutes to speak and be given a warning when you have one minute. Thank you. Well, good evening, Chair and Councillors. Just want to say thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak. My name is Ed Kemsley. I'm from Peacock and Smith, and we are the planning advisors assisting the applicant with this project. At the outset, we'd highlight this newly constructed building has been vacant for over three years. The client has undertaken significant efforts to secure a commercial tenant. And whilst interest from the national retailer was secured in 2022, when this planning application was first submitted, that interest fell away. Due in part to the delays with the application, and I know members undertook their site visit today, witnessed the unit boarded up. It's also been subject to graffiti and also littering to the front boundary. My client has now secured an agreement with Tesco, who wished to occupy and trade a local convenience store from this vacant unit. I know that Tesco has written directly to all planning committee members, outlining the significant benefits that a new store would bring. This is local jobs. This is up to 20 jobs. A mix of full-time and part-time. It's also improved convenience provision for local residents. It's an energy-efficient store and community support, including local grants, and donating surplus food to charities and groups in need. Now, we undertook pre-application discussions with officers in 2021, and this provided clear confirmation that proposed retail use would contribute towards the vitality and vibrancy of this town centre, whilst creating an active street frontage. Members will also be aware that national, London, and Barnet policies all actively encourage and support retail uses in defined town centres such as this. Members will also be aware that in recent years, retail vacancies in town centres has increased, partly due to changing shopping habits and online shopping. My client has constructed this commercial space on a speculative basis and has waited three years to get this occupied. This application does represent a real opportunity to bring back a vacant unit into use and to deliver the significant benefits associated with it. The application has addressed all issues associated with this type of use, and we know that officers in planning, environmental health, highways, have all agreed to pose all subject to appropriate conditions. Given the officer's report and recommendation, I don't wish to take up any more of your time, but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. I'm here with my client, but also with my client's highways consultant, should you have any highways-related questions, if you want to direct them to him. Thank you. Thank you. Questions? Council of Barnes. There's been some questions raised about if this is used for retail, how the deliveries will in practice work and proximity to the crossing. I wonder if you can answer those. Well, I can answer that. I'm a planning consultant. Our highways consultant is here also. But I would just highlight that the delivery arrangements include the use of the unloading provision on High Road, and it's about 27.5 metres long. This has been an ongoing delivery arrangement for all businesses up and down High Road. It was the approved delivery arrangement for the commercial unit that stands there today, so for the office unit. The surveys that have been taken recently have shown that there is constant capacity within that 27.5 metres length of road, more than enough to accommodate articulated vehicle and other vehicles at the same time. This type of delivery arrangement, delivering from the street, is very commonplace. Sainsbury's further up High Road, and we've provided multiple examples. Thousands of stores up and down the country within urban, busy settings like this, rural settings, will all have similar delivery arrangements. The delivery and servicing plan that was approved by Barnet Council under the previous scheme, this was updated to reflect the change in use. The relationship with the units and the provisions within it in terms of delivery arrangements have not changed from what was approved by Barnet's highways officers. And there's been lengthy discussions with Barnet highways. And that resulted in the additional of the service that were provided to show that it will work. Thank you. Does that answer your question? If not, I could. Yeah, OK. Thank you. Thank you. From experience with other Tescos, how often, sorry, how many times a day would you expect vehicles to be parked up, loading, unloading, and what's the average time that they take? Well, I can tell you, it's the delivery and servicing plan has assumed that there'd be eight two-way trips per day. I don't know how long it would take for a delivery to load and unload. I don't have an answer to that, I'm afraid. But as I say, it's a very, very common practice up and down, particularly up and down High Road and across London. Thank you. My question is, when you talk about the employment, generating employment, would you be able to tell us that what sort of employment volume would you be generating the employment? Well, I think the estimate is up to 20 jobs. So that is a mix of full-time and part-time. Typically, there will be a store manager, assistant manager, and there will be part-time workers that work within the store. I don't have details in terms of the exact breakdown, but the estimates from this site, from when I've dealt with other sites, and I've dealt with other retailers, Tesco's, et cetera, and Morrison's, looking at employment generating from these uses. And they provide local jobs. Typically, retail jobs attract local people for employment. Thank you. The other thing that was raised by a councillor was two things. One, about when deliveries come, although they can park on the WL lines a bit further up. That means trampling all the trolleys. Yeah, the cages to the store, to the front of the store. So the effect on the pavements. And also about the disposal of rubbish. She and I both know there's a lot of concern about rubbish and litter. Is that outside the property or generated by... Generally, it is essentially high road. It's one of our major concerns at the moment. But, yes, the arrangement in terms of the cages full of produce will be taken from the back of the truck and taken to the front of the store and in the front of the store. Waste and rubbish from the retail units. Tesco's, along with all national retailers, they backfill rubbish recycling back into the truck. So as a delivery is arriving, once it's unloaded, the waste and recycling will be backloaded into the store and taken away. So does that answer your question? Are you talking about waste generation from customers using the store or high road? No, it's about waste on the high road outside. Shops, bins being full, litter being left, bags being left. Sure. Well, I think in this location, when I was there today, there are obviously waste bins up and down high road within close proximity to the site. So it's just obviously some people decide not to use them. The effect on payment's been broken there. I was just about to say something else. Yep, no, I think that's us. Okay, thank you. Oh, yes. If we were to be minded to refuse this application, would you still be looking for somebody to use it as offices? Well, no, the office, I mean, my client had some initial interest from people wanting some office space, but not this size of office. In terms of other opportunities, I don't know. This is obviously why this application was submitted three years ago, because then the co-op had expressed an interest and they were willing to take the space, but they pulled away from the site because of the delays with the planning application. But there's a high chance that this may remain vacant. As I said within my speech, my clients built this on a speculative basis, and I think in this day and age, when you're dealing with retailing, there's not a lot of developers that would actually deliver a scheme on a speculative basis and then market it to try and get interest. Okay. This is real interest to deliver a retail use within a town centre that your local plan protects and preserves and wants to enhance, and this is what this scheme achieves. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions to the officers? Or concerns? Yeah, I'd just like to speak about concerns, as I say. I know this local council, local people are very concerned about rubbish, about parking. There is another Tesco store further down the road in Spinchley. There are large delivery offices, those lorries that seem to be parked outside it, on WNR lines outside that one, at most hours of the day, causing traffic. So although other stores, our largest supermarket, Budgins and Sainsbury's, don't seem to have the same. I don't know if this is something particularly about Tesco, but delivery and taking up that particular road with the narrowest and the use of it outside the station is, I must say, is a concern. So I don't know if you've got any more comments before we go to the vote. You can see in the plan, these are storage for refuse storage. So here, it should be, it will be stored here. When, during the collection time, it will, from the side road, you can see that this is the excess, it will be collected. And, what was the other question, please? Sorry, what was the other question? Yeah, my concern is, it's about deliveries, lorries, although they can park there. It's the amount of time they would be there, taking up what is the narrow and very busy part of the road, where people are turning into the station. They seem to be, you know, particularly for Tesco's, and we haven't heard specifically about Tesco's, their request to do this. For Tesco's store further up the road, their delivery lorries do cause more problems there than delivery lorries for any other store, essentially. We also have imposed conditions for delivery and collection. And, so, and also, like, further condition for insulation, so that the commercial premise is insulated from the first floor residential premise, with more soundproof material, and so on, so, which is, EH officer actually approved that condition. And, also, like, delivery time is restricted, which is 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday to Saturday, and 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sundays and bank holidays. And, furthermore, I can inform you that the mechanical ventilation is installed for upstairs flats, so it's not always necessary for them to open the window for fresh air or ventilation, so this will also help to reduce the noise trouble and protect their amenity. Thank you. Thank you. Just to clarify, it is set out that the local highway authority, they have reviewed the delivery and service plan and the addendum to that, and they don't raise any objections to it. So, it's difficult for us to say that there would be unacceptable highway risk resulting from the proposal if the local highway authority have considered it, and they don't think that there would. If, anecdotally, they may come to not operate in accordance with delivery and service planning cause issues, then that would certainly be a problem, but that would be enforceable either by the highway authority if it's a breach of their regulations, and, in this instance, because it would be approved subject to conditions, then it's a planning enforcement issue as well. So, there's a double level of governance over it where there might not otherwise be. Thank you. Any further comments or questions? Councillor Kikaram. When we have a site widget today, there is an access to the site access. So, who else is using that site access? I mean, they're more concerned about the delivery. This access is for, you can see, for the car parking. So, one for car club and one for the disabled parking, and also for the refuse collection. So, here is the refuse storage. So, this access would be used by both, like, this two parking and refuse collection. Thank you. Yeah, they can't make deliveries through that point, because then they would be blocking the access. Also, as we saw today, it's not easy to necessarily maneuver a larger vehicle into that space. There's no more comments or questions, but we will go to the vote. The offices are recommending approval. All those in favor of approval. That's four. And against. And against one. So, that application is approved. And we move on to 38 to 40 Golders Manor Drive. This is a joint application for both 38 and 40 Golders Manor Drive, and the proposal involves roof extensions, including hip-to-gable. The proposed floor. Mansard across the two properties, with additional two rear dormer windows to each property. And roof lights to front, roof slope and one gable window. The proposal also involves first floor rear infill between the two outriggers. and for the first floor viewer extension beyond the existing outriggers a new front porch this is a site location plan pair of semi-detached properties area long view this is number 40 as views from the front and this is number 38 again front elevation the properties benefit from extant planning permission granted for a single storey rear extension which as you can see from the photographs here they have been built permission was also granted for roof extensions including hip to gable and rear dormers which have not been implemented this application seeks approval to enlarge and amend the approved roof extensions and I'll run through the plans so this is the existing plans so number 38 and number 40 sorry I beg your pardon this is number 38 and that's number 40 that's existing and this is the proposed so the proposal is to infill the this area here between the two outriggers so which is effectively where the blue line is drawn here there's an infill there and a further 1.4 meter beyond the existing rear elevation of the both outriggers the proposed log floor plan we've got mansard roof design which is across the two properties and two dormer windows in each elevation these are the existing and proposed front elevations as you will see this is the hip to gable end and again here to gable end with two roof lights the front roof slope and the other change to the front elevation is the two porches proposed so this is the existing and proposed rear elevations as you will see the changes to the roof form includes large mansard roof design across the two properties extending over the outriggers partially including four rear dormers to the rear the proposed roof alterations as you will see would eliminate the dual pitch or hip to roof rather resulting in a bulky box like structure that appears top-heavy and visually discordant subsuming the original characteristics of the original dwelling houses so this is the existing and proposed side elevations so where you have the hip to gable here then you have the mansard roof design previously the roof extensions involved just the rear dorm window which you can see outlined in green here it was a subservient structure within the rear roof slopes and it was included within each elevation rather than include extending across the two properties and then you have the roof dormers extending beyond the actual mansard roof and then the first floor rear extensions beyond the outrigger is this element here which is approximately 1.4 meters so as you see the mansard roof does extend partially over the existing outriggers which results in a very bulky roof form this is as viewed from the other renovation the existing and proposed block plan so these are the previous approvals so the roof extensions as you will see is in each elevation so number 38 and this is number 40 and there was no first floor rear extension again previously approved showing existing and proposed rear and i thought i'll put a comparison of proposal against the roof extensions in the vicinity of the site while there are roof extensions within the vicinity of the site namely numbers 42 and 44 these are not really comparable to the cumulative scale and bulk of the extensions proposed at the host site the first floor extensions existing at numbers 42 and 44 on their own may be comparable albeit approximately 0.5 meters less in depth at the first floor level but um it's the cumulative impact of we're not just looking at the first floor here or just the roof extensions we're looking at the cumulative impact of the extensions and looking around the surrounding area there isn't anything comparable to what is proposed at numbers 38 and 40. uh it's worth noting that number 42 does not benefit from roof extensions number 44 benefits from hip to gable granted under permitted development rights so that was implemented under um permitted development rights number 46 which is uh here does not benefit from any permissions or extensions um number 48 which is this one which is this one was given planning permission for part single part two storey rear extension including rear dormer over the outbreak within 2016 and number 50 does not benefit from any form of uh extensions or um certificate of lawfulness application so i'm assuming uh it was built uh it was built unlawfully as can be noted the proposal in its entirety is not comparable to other roof extensions in the area the cumulative scale bulk and massing of the proposed extensions across both dwellings would represent an unsympathetic form of development which subsumes the characteristics of the pair of semi-detached properties as you can see here it's a box-like structure and fails to respond to the characteristics of the area and the officer's recommendation is to refuse the application thank you thank you thank you um we have the agent of this application joey banyal uh yeah thank you Uh uh thank you thank you then if you can turn the microphone on the face symbol the face symbol on the panel on the black panel the face symbol towards the bottom that's it and then if you introduce yourself you have three minutes to speak you're supposed to be good at tech you'll be giving a warning when you have one minute left thank you good evening councillors thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all this evening my name is Joey Benyarve and I'm speaking up off of three different parties tonight the project architect myself at number 38 and my neighbours who are joint applicants at number 40 Joseph and Gila Kay and their families as we were told that only one of us can speak tonight this is a modest and neighbourly first floor rear extension with a pitched roof submitted jointly by two adjoining homeowners to avoid piecemeal development and deliver a balanced design page one what I showed you shows that at 42 and 44 next door first floor rear extensions exactly like this one have already been approved we've shown the existing and approved outlines at 42 and 44 with a green dashed line and our proposed works at 38 and 40 below for direct comparison page two shows 44's extension as already built and clearly visible from our site forming part of the context below that you'll see 16 and 18 Sinclair Grove which is the next road round the corner another joint scheme with matching pitched roofs that was explicitly supported and approved by the council like that example our design is subservient set below the ridge avoids harm to the neighbours and uses a pitched roof to reduce massing in line with policy preferences and local character we follow that approach deliberately opting for a pitched roof to reduce massing and enhance visual quality which aligns with policy preferences against the first floor flat roofs at the bottom right of page two we've overlaid three outlines on the elevation of 38 and 40 red showing what is already approved green what has been approved and built at 44 and also approved at 42 and blue what's approved at 16 and 18 Sinclair Grove page three compares the existing and proposed street scene at 38 and 40 and as you can see the change is minimal if noticeable at all the scheme has zero objections and both applicants have worked together to ensure the scheme is consistent respectful and in keeping with the area we're simply proposing to infill the two outriggers with minor extensions as approved next door at number 40 lives Mr K with his wife and four children including a daughter with health needs who can't share a room the current layout no longer meets their needs this isn't about redevelopment it's about staying in their family home in the community that they love we've approached this carefully and told the officers that we're open to reasonable changes but we feel the recommendation for refusal overlooks key context clear precedent and the joy nature of the proposal we hope the committee agrees as a modest well-designed scheme and fits comfortably into the setting thank you very much and please if you have any questions thank you any questions councillor problems so you said that you were willing to accept some suggestions for changes from the planning department did you actually consult with them when you were doing these plans we did this is our I think our third application on the site as we've had all the previous ones approved and at all stages the planning officers have thankfully been communicative and talking to us about any sort of minor amendment that they'd want which we've previously done and we offered the same this time we asked if there are any amendments or anything different we could do to allay their concerns about anything specific given it's the main point is that the infill between the two outriggers is what we're trying to achieve whether it's a flat roof or a pitch roof on top questionable to us how that makes a difference but to the council they seem to be sticking to that point so we did offer so that's the key the key point as you understand it's the roof we want to fight for the infill we believe in infill on an application site with no objections where it doesn't really affect anyone else but yes makes such a difference especially to a family with four children should be considered acceptable but you said the planning department were unhappy with the roof they were unhappy with the pitched roof that we put on top of that first floor outrigger infill but you weren't willing to alter that the problem is that when they previously allowed us to have the infill they essentially asked us to keep a pitched roof on top of it but not one that formed part of the main roof and what that did was that pitched roof element above what they would have approved would have completely cancelled out any ability to have any windows in the dormer because of how that would have come up and joined the main roof so really what they were saying to us was choose loft or infill thank you any further questions no thank you very much and thank you thank you for this which was sent for display email as well thank you any questions to the officers or further comments councillor callick in your opinion was it a straight choice between loft and infill I wasn't the manager assigned to this particular application but I think what we're saying here is the cumulative impact of the roof as well as the first floor rear extension so it could be that some form of first floor rear extensions may be acceptable however I think looking at this we're looking at the overall bulk and scale of the development and we said that cumulatively it would be overly large disproportionate and it subsumes the original characteristics of the pair of semi-detached properties as you will see this mansard roof extends in one building form across the two buildings and it does actually subsume the characteristics of the pair but if an application was forthcoming for just first floor rear extension obviously that would be a separate assessment and it may well be acceptable but I wouldn't be able to obviously confirm this meeting tonight as I said that would be a separate assessment altogether on its own the applicant is open to have a pre-app advice as to what may be considered acceptable I'm sure there may have been some discussions with the officers under this application where the applicants were informed what was not acceptable but obviously we wouldn't engage given that the application has come in together with the first floor as well as the refixation we wouldn't then engage in giving the applicant advice on what could be regarded as acceptable that would be a separate entity altogether I hope that answers your question Catherine Thank you any further questions otherwise we'll go to the vote the officers are recommending refuse all of this application or that those in support of the officers recommendation to refuse and those not in support of 4.1 that application has been refused and move on to the last item on the agenda 16 Hillside Gardens Good evening so this application is 16 Hillside Gardens for roof extension involving hip-to-gable rear dormer window with Juliet balcony one rear and three front-facing roof lights as well as change of first floor side extension roof from hip-to-gable roof to match the main roof so this is the site location plan and here is the aerial view of the application site and here are some site photos as we can see this pair of semi-detached house so this one is the application site number 16 but the other pair number 14 does not currently benefit from a hip-to-gable roof extension on the site so here are the existing plan of the site and here is the proposed plan so here is the hip-to-gable the proposed hip-to-gable and then here is the additional first floor side extension roof so this one is the S-built first floor side extension but they're changing this roof into a gable roof and here is the rear dormer window so there from the site planning history there is a certificate of lawfulness previously granted however it is for like a roof extension as well for the certificate of lawfulness however officers consider this is not comparable because the certificate of lawfulness require a two stage development so first of all the first stage under the certificate of lawfulness require the removal of the existing roof over the first floor side extension so it will become a flat roof and once it's become a flat roof and then it can commence to build the hip-to-gable as well as the rear dormer but however as we can see from this proposed plan this additional gable roof on top of the first floor extension basically it's materially different from the certificate of lawfulness which could be done under permitted development and also from the site history there are a similar roof extension like hip-to-gable and rear dormer roof extension has previously been refused four times on this site so three of them were under delegated powers and one of them is committee decision so here are some comparisons of the previously refused scheme to the currently proposed scheme so so this one is the oldest application we had refused under delegated powers so there was a really large rear dormer window and there is a slide set down as well as there is a gable roof on top of the side extension and the current one it has got a smaller rear dormer however it still keeps the it still keeps the gable roof on top of the side extension and here's some more comparison of that and here are the other previously refused scheme so the previous refused one also got a large rear dormer window which has a width of 9 meters however now the rear dormer window has been reduced in width to 5.6 meters however officers still consider this is unacceptable in character because this would not comply with the residential design guidance which requires dormer windows to be half the width or depth of the roof as well as leaving spaces above and below dormer windows and here is the latest scheme that got refused in a planning committee so similarly the rear dormer window the previous one is wider and the current proposed one is narrower but we we still consider this is not acceptable yes so the key consideration is similar proposals for hip-to-gable and rear dormer window although the scale is different those were previously refused and now we like officers still consider this is unacceptable because of the scale even though it's reduced and the previous certificate of lawfulness which I've just mentioned that requires a two-stage development which removed the roof on top of the side extension to achieve a flat roof before going on to building the hip-to-gable and the rear dormer so basically the finished product of the certificate of lawfulness when comparing to the current proposal it will be different it will be material different because of the additional gable roof on top of the side extension and also the overall cubic meters the volume increase to the roof in the current proposal would be more than the permitted development limit of 50 cubic meters so there is no fallback position for permitted development and as I've said before the rear dormer window does not comply with the residential design guidance because of its size and the hip-to-gable proposal also does not comply with the residential design guidance as it will unbalance the pair of semi detached house as the other house doesn't currently have a gable roof yeah and then and the proposal it's disproportionate to the original dwelling unsimplified to the character appearing dominant and bulky and therefore the application is recommended for refusal thank you again we have no speakers on this we just have the agent thank you I know you're well in practice at doing all of this so if you can turn the microphone on introduce yourself you have three minutes to speak you're given a warning when you have one minute left thank you chair my name is emily benedict and i'm the agent for this application it is crucial to establish at the outset what is and is not being considered this evening so members are fully informed in their deliberations a certificate of lawfulness has already been granted for a hip to gable roof extension and rear dormer window along with a flat roof over the first floor side extension the size scale and design of the approved hip to gable and dormer elements remain unchanged in this proposal the only amendment being put before you tonight is a design improvement replacing the approved flat roof with a gable ended pitched roof that lines seamlessly with the existing architectural style of the main house this is not a question of additional bulk or massing simply one of improving design quality the gable roof offers a visually coherent and more attractive solution than the incongruous flat roof currently approved we must also stress that some assertions within the committee report do not accurately reflect the on-site context notably numbers 2 10 and 35 hillside gardens or double fronted properties of equal or greater width than the application site feature full width hip to gable roofs including over their first floor side extensions with no set down from the main ridge and in in all three cases the resulting design is visually integrated and forms part of the established character of the street however our proposal goes further to preserve character unlike those examples the dormant in this case would be limited solely to the roof of the original dwelling avoiding the full width approach that others have taken this demonstrates our clients willingness to adopt a more sensitive and measured design officers have raised concerns about the impact on the symmetry of the semi detached pair however this argument does not hold one considered against both the approved fallback position and the established local context once the certificate of lawfulness is implemented the pair will already be unbalanced regardless and crucially all three aforementioned examples already display the exact same asymmetrical relationship with no demonstrable harm to the street scene indeed given that such roof forms have been implemented nearby without issue it is difficult to reconcile how this modest and well considered amendment could now be deemed harmful quite the opposite refusing this proposal risks forcing the applicant to construct a flat roof alternative that is demonstrably less sympathetic and more visually intrusive lastly the proposal will provide additional storage space which is an essential provision for a family with five young children every additional square meter truly does make a difference in conclusion we respectfully urge members to take a pragmatic and design led view this proposal concerns a small refinement to an already improved scheme a refinement that improves the appearance of the property respects the character of the area and follows clear precedent and immediate vicinity thank you for your consideration I'm happy to answer any questions thank you any questions I just want to ask the officer questions to the speaker first no no thanks very much Emily so Councillor Groom got a question for the officers yeah I just want to ask you one thing that I don't understand because I'm a technical person you say an acceptable character would you be able to explain more by that so basically let's look at the yeah so basically first of all unacceptable in character which we're for example we're talking about like this house of the other house of the pair of this semi detached for example it has got hip roof on the side however if we are to build a gable roof then it will be kind of like unbalancing the pair of semi detached so this is the first thing we consider this is unacceptable in character because for example when you're walking down the street it it will appear at odd when you look at the pair of semi detached so it will be harmful to the street scene and that's why it's unacceptable to character and the other thing it's regarding the rear dormer window although there are some other large rear dormer windows nearby however large rear dormer windows are not a characteristic feature in the surrounding area so basically what I'm saying is not the majority of the houses currently have a large rear dormer so basically if we are to build a large rear dormer window it will also appear at out and out of character so this is also another thing about unacceptable in character yeah thank you I think what to bear in mind here is the fact that the gable not only extends across the whole width of the property but it actually extends over the first floor side extension as well which then makes it overly bulky and when you compare the pair of same detached properties it would definitely unbalance the symmetry of the pair other other questions or comments no otherwise we will go to the vote the officers are recommending refusal on this application for all those who support the officers recommendation to refuse fischer for those those who don't support the officers refuse one four one so that application has been refused so that is I haven't been given notice of any other business so apart from to wish everybody a very happy summer it's not very long it's the end of July early September is our next meeting but I hope you're able to have some kind break during the next few weeks