Agenda item

23/00152/HOU - 65 Kingwell Road, Barnet, EN4 0HZ


Grant subject to conditions.


WARD: Cockfosters


The legal representative advised that a declaration of interest had been received from Cllr Mahym Bedekova, who disclosed a non-pecuniary interest, having used the agent involved in the past. Having sought advice from the legal representative, she withdrew from the meeting during discussions and voting on this application.


Ms L Lewis, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report, highlighting the key aspects of the application.


The officer emphasised, that earlier on in the application process, an outbuilding had been included in the proposals, but had since been withdrawn. The officer added that a further representation had been received earlier that day, raising concerns about the status of the approved development of an additional storey.


The Chair asked that officers provide better, larger scale, coloured diagrams, in the future.


A deputation was received from Christine Webster, a local resident, who spoke against the officers’ recommendation.


Another deputation was received from Cllr Alessandro Georgiou, Cockfosters Ward Councillor, who spoke against the officers’ recommendation. Cllr Georgiou asked that Members defer the application, in order to give officers time to review the details of the proposals and address the issues raised, and that if they were not minded to do so, they refuse it altogether.


The agent, Mr Murat Aydemir, spoke in response.


Officers responded to comments and questions, and advised that the application was considered to be in accordance with relevant policies. It was confirmed that officers had not identified any harm that the development would cause, that the new side extension above the garage was offset from the boundary by 1m, and was in keeping with other similar developments in the area.


In response to Member’s queries, officers confirmed that the application had been considered in accordance with all the relevant policies, and that the DMDs had been responded to through the report.


The Head of Development Management provided further advice in respect of the upward extension, which was a permitted development. Officers confirmed that the application put forward to committee was all that could be considered. The legal representative confirmed that the upper floor was substantially complete.


The Director of Planning and Growth provided assurance that he was satisfied with the work and conclusions of officers.


The Head of Development Management confirmed that the previous application was included at paragraph 6.2 of the report.


In response to Member’s queries, the Head of Development Management provided clarification in respect of the side extension, and considerations in relation to the additional storey.


In response to Member’s queries regarding trees, officers advised that the original application included an outbuilding which would result in a loss of trees, but that this had since been withdrawn from the proposal.


In response to Member’s queries regarding finishing materials, officers confirmed the condition, in respect of new external work, shall be carried out in materials that resemble as closely as possible the colour and texture of the existing building. 


Officers responded to Member’s further queries regarding SuDS and the third storey, and confirmed that it was appropriate to consider the scale and mass of the entire building in context of the additional storey.


Members had ongoing concerns with regards to the building’s bulk, scale, mass, and intrusiveness, in relation to the street scene.


The proposal having been put to the vote; Members voted:






and so, it was AGREED:


That the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report.


The Chair adjourned the meeting at 21:03, to give members a rest break, and the meeting resumed at 21:09.

Supporting documents: