Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Hendon Town Hall, The Burroughs, London NW4 4BG

Contact: Faith Mwende Email: Faith.Mwende@barnet.gov.uk 020 8359 4917 

Items
No. Item

1.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 60 KB

2.

ABSENCE OF MEMBERS (IF ANY)

3.

DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND NON PECUNIARY INTERESTS (IF ANY)

4.

Report of the Monitoring Officer (If any)

5.

Addendum (if applicable) pdf icon PDF 34 KB

6.

61 Albert Road London NW4 2SH - 18/5637/RCU pdf icon PDF 503 KB

    Minutes:

    The planning officer introduced the report which related to 61 Albert Road London NW4 2SH. This application was deferred from the Hendon Area Planning meeting on the 29th November 2018, in order to allow Members to conduct an internal site visit before this meeting.

     

    An oral representation was made in objection to the application by Ms Rosemarie Stein.

     

    An oral representation was made by the applicant’s representative.

     

    Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to vote on the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve the application subject to conditions in the report.

     

    Votes were recorded as follows:

     

    For -    3         

    Against -        3

    Abstain –       0

     

    The Chairman used his casting vote to vote against the officer’s recommendation to approve.

     

    The Chairman moved a motion to refuse the application, which was seconded by Councillor Sargeant for the following reasons:

    -       That the planning application was deemed to be an overdevelopment of the site, in particular, the density of the occupants at the site was inappropriate for the location within a road comprised of very small terraced houses, thus impacting greatly on the neighbours.

     

    Votes on the motion to REFUSE the application were as follows:

     

    For – 3

    Against - 3

    Abstain – 0

     

    The Chairman used his casting vote to REFUSE the application.

     

    The Committee therefore RESOLVED to REFUSE the application, as per the reasons outlined above.

     

7.

278 Watford Way London NW4 4UR - 18/4247/FUL pdf icon PDF 437 KB

    Minutes:

    The planning officer introduced the report which related to 278 Watford Way London NW4 4UR.

     

    An oral representation in objection was made by Mr Hickman.

     

    An oral representation was made for the applicant.

     

    Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to vote on the recommendation in the cover report, which was to approve subject to s106.

     

    The Chairman moved the motion to add the following condition to the application:

    - That the maximum capacity of the nursey be 49.

    The motion was seconded by Councillor Bokaei.

     

    The votes on the motion were as follows:

    For- 5

    Against- 0

    Abstain – 1

    The Committee therefore resolved to add this condition to the application.

     

    The Chairman then moved to vote on the recommendation to approve the application outlined in the report, with the condition of the nursery’s maximum capacity being 49.

     

    Votes were recorded as follows:

     

    For -    6         

    Against - 0    

    Abstain - 0

     

    The Committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application subject to s106 and the capacity of the nursery being 49.

     

8.

20A Shirehall Close London NW4 2QP - 18/6946/FUL pdf icon PDF 798 KB

    Minutes:

    The planning officer introduced the report which related to 20A Shirehall Close London NW4 2QP

     

    An oral representation was made by the applicant.

     

    Following discussion of the item, the Chairman moved to vote on the recommendation in the cover report, which was to refuse the application. Votes were recorded as follows:

     

    For -                1

    Against -        4

    Abstain –       1

     

    Councillor Richman, seconded by Councillor Simberg moved a motion to go against the officer’s recommendation to refuse and to approve the application, for the following reasons;

    -       That the appearance of the roof extension would be acceptable in that it would not be aesthetically dissimilar to many neighbouring roof extensions, and if that the sole reason for refusal of the application would be due to the status of the building as flats, this too should not impact the design or amenity impact of the roof extension.

     

    Votes were recorded as follows:

     

    For: 4

    Against: 0

    Abstain: 2

     

    The Committee therefore RESOLVED to APPROVE the application.

     

9.

Any Item(s) the Chairman decides are urgent