The Planning Committee of Barnet Council met to discuss several planning applications, including tree preservation orders and building conversions. Councillors voted to approve a tree preservation order, and an application for a front extension, but refused an application to remove protected trees. A decision on the conversion of a barn into a dwelling was deferred until the next meeting.

Barn Conversion in Brickfield Lane

Two applications relating to a barn adjacent to Windmill Cottage in Brickfield Lane were deferred to the next meeting, after councillors disagreed with the planning officer's recommendation for refusal. The first application, 24/4469/FUL, concerned the conversion of the existing barn into a single dwelling. The second, 24/4470/LBC, related to listed building consent for the works.

The planning officer recommended refusal of both applications, stating that the development, by reason of its siting and paraphernalia, would harm the openness of the green belt¹. The officer's report noted:

Whilst the proposed extension are not considered to impact the openness of the Green Belt, the additional paraphernalia associated with the residential use of the site, such as formalisation of boundaries, additional enclosures for refuse and cycle storage, parking of cars, any further hardstanding or potential boundary walls, including children's play area/equipment, garden furniture and elements that are not capable of being conditioned but likely to introduce some additional spread of moveable / unmoveable structures on site, will have an impact on the openness of the site and the character of the Green Belt.

[Steven Gray], chairman of Hadley Football Club and committee member of the Arkley Association, spoke in support of the application, stating that the barn has looked unsafe for as long as he can remember, and that the proposal is the only way to guarantee the barn remains a feature on the site for many generations to come. He added that the barn is fairly well hidden by hedges and shrubs, so he could not see any negative effects on the green belt.

[Marcus Constantine], the applicant, said that he and his wife had worked closely with council officers and every statutory consultee, and had listened, made changes and improved the design. He added that there were now no objections from Historic England², Barnet's conservation officer, the Barn Society or any neighbours. Mr Constantine said that the only issue raised by planning officers was whether domestic use would cause substantial harm to the openness of an already enclosed and screened site within the green belt. He argued that before and after images clearly showed there were hardly any noticeable differences, and that any domestic paraphernalia would be contained within the site, unseen from public view. He said that he was happy for conditions to control matters like lighting, boundaries and parking.

Councillor Richard Barnes proposed that the item be deferred with a mind to approval, as he was not convinced that there would be significant harm to the openness of the green belt. Councillor Humayune Khalick seconded the proposal, and the committee voted to defer the item to the next meeting.

Tree Preservation Order, Barnet Road

Councillors voted to confirm a provisional tree preservation order (TPO) for an ash tree at 57 Barnet Road. The tree is believed to be a replacement for a weeping willow that was removed in 2001. The TPO was made because there was an application to construct a front garage and install a front boundary wall, which officers felt would have an unacceptable impact on the tree roots.

The planning officer, Terry Wong, told the committee that objections to the order had been received from both the owner and the neighbour at number 59, relating to potential damage to the driveway and services. He said that such damage could be addressed under the usual planning application and TPO application processes. He added that many trees along Barnet Road are protected by tree preservation orders, which is why it is such a green and pleasant street.

Tree Removal, Priory Field Drive

An application to remove two oak trees at 94A Priory Field Drive was refused. The application stated that the trees were implicated in causing subsidence to the property at 40-46 Priory Field Drive.

The planning officer, Jonathan Mills, told the committee that the council engineers had reviewed all the technical information and confirmed that the house was built in the 1980s, so it should have had sufficient foundations. He said that tree roots were found below the foundations, but there were also other aspects missing, as the engineer did not note any movement joints in the external brickwork, which could also have resulted in the cracking. He concluded that the trees would be implicated in the minor occurrence of the foundations, exacerbated by the underpinning of the rear elevation.

Councillor Khalick said that the evidence implicating the trees was weak, as they were 20 metres away from the building, with a whole building in between. He also noted the structural issues identified by the engineers. The committee voted to refuse consent for the removal of the trees.

Front Extension, Lime Grove

Councillors approved an application for a two-storey front extension with a gabled roof at Devoran, Lime Grove. The proposal also included alterations to the fenestration³. The planning officer, Tina Oliveira, told the committee that the property is a detached shallow bungalow in the Totteridge Conservation Area⁴. She said that the dwelling is of modern architecture with no special character, and that there are TPO trees along the shared boundary. She added that there are a number of dwellings with gabled roofs in the surrounding area, so the proposal would not deviate from the established character. Lisa Rosen, who lives directly behind Devoran, objected to the application, stating that the enlarged windows and dormers would look straight into her garden and home, resulting in an unacceptable loss of privacy. She also said that the proposal would increase bulk and height, creating a box-like structure out of keeping with its neighbours, and that it would reduce natural light in the afternoons, changing the character of her garden and outdoor space.

Gerald Dessier, who lives next door to Devoran, said that allowing the windows and dormer windows would affect his privacy, light and enjoyment of his home. He added that in 1991, he was assured that there would be no further development on the site, as it was completely overdeveloped from a two-bedroom bungalow to a three-storey house.

The applicant, Dr Hamid Bahai, said that the planning officers had looked at the application very thoroughly and carefully, and had confirmed that the proposal was modest, proportionate and fully compliant with the Barnet local plan, London plan and national planning policy. He added that there was absolutely no invasion of privacy in any way whatsoever.

The committee voted to approve the application.

Conversion to Flats, Finchley Lane

An application for the conversion of a dwelling at 85 Finchley Lane into three self-contained flats was approved, with an additional condition about the side passage being made accessible before occupation. The proposal included a first-floor rear extension, a roof extension, changes to fenestration, and front porch alterations.

The planning officer, Daniel Wieder, told the committee that the development would provide a three-bed family-size unit on the ground floor, as well as two new units. He said that the conversion was not considered to be out of character with the area, noting several other examples of flat conversions within proximity, including the adjacent semi-detached property.

Josh Myers, the planning agent, said that the application had been called in by a councillor on the basis that the proposal would result in the loss of a single-family home, which would be contrary to local plan policy. He said that the relevant policies which relate to the conversion of existing dwelling houses into flats are in policy HOU03, which requires that any residential conversion must foremost retain a family dwelling flat at ground floor level with access to a garden.