MEETING PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATE …

MEETING

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

DATE AND TIMEWEDNESDAY, 7 JUNE 2006

AT 7.00 PM VENUE

THE TOWN HALL, THE BURROUGHS,

HENDON, NW4 4BG

TO: MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE (Quorum: 5) Chairman: Councillor Eva Greenspan Vice-Chairman: Councillor Maureen Braun Councillors: Jack Cohen Melvin Cohen Brian Coleman Jeremy Davies Olwen Evans Claire Farrier Anne Hutton John Marshall Andrew McNeil Wendy Prentice Sachin Rajput Hugh Rayner Lisa Rutter Kate Salinger Gill Sargeant Agnes Slocombe Jim Tierney Daniel Webb Richard Weider Substitutes: Fiona Bulmer Terry Burton Wayne Casey Richard Cornelius Geoffrey Cooke Mukesh Depala Jane Ellison Andrew Harper Helena Hart Christopher Harris Julie Johnson Kath McGuirk Mathew Offord Charlie O-Macauley Monroe Palmer Bridget Perry Colin Rogers Andreas Tambourides Daniel Thomas Marina Yannakoudakis Zakia Zubairi

You are requested to attend the above meeting for which an Agenda is attached.

John Marr Democratic Services Manager Democratic Services contact: Maria Lugangira Telephone: 020 8359 2140. Press and Public Relations contact: Emer Coleman Telephone: 020 8359 7794

FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES The Town Hall has access for wheelchair users including lifts and toilets. If you wish to let us know in advance that you will be attending the meeting, please telephone Maria Lugangira on 020 8359 2761. People with hearing difficulties who have a text phone, may telephone our minicom number on 020 8203 8942. All our Committee Rooms also have induction loops.

Town Hall Hendon NW4 4BG

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Item No. Title of Report Contributors Page Nos.

1 MINUTES - -

2 ABSENCE OF MEMBERS -

3 PUBLIC SPEAKING ARRANGEMENTS - -

4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - -

5 DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS

- -

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PETITIONS - -

7 MEMBERS’ ITEMS - -

8 Planning Appeals Mini Review HPEP 1 - 6

9 Applications for Planning Permissions and Consents- Hendon Area

HPEP 7 - 20

10 Reports of the Area Planning Sub-Committees (If any)

- -

11 ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN DECIDES ARE URGENT

- -

Fire/Emergency Evacuation Procedure If the fire alarm sounds continuously, or if you are instructed to do so, you must leave the building by the nearest available exit. You will be directed to the nearest exit by Committee staff or by uniformed porters. It is vital you follow their instructions. You should proceed calmly; do not run and do not use the lift. Do not stop to collect personal belongings. Once you are outside, please do not wait immediately next to the building, but move some distance away and await further instructions. Do not re-enter the building until told to do so.

AGENDA ITEM: 8 Page nos. 1 - 6

Meeting Planning and Environment Committee Date e 7 June 2006 7 June 2006 Subject Subject Planning Appeals mini review Planning Appeals mini review Report of Report of Head of Planning & Environmental Protection Head of Planning & Environmental Protection Summary Summary In response to a Members Item raised at the last meeting of the

Committee on 29th March 2006 officers have undertaken a mini review of procedures, delegation and functions of planning appeals and the role of members in appeal process.

In response to a Members Item raised at the last meeting of the Committee on 29th March 2006 officers have undertaken a mini review of procedures, delegation and functions of planning appeals and the role of members in appeal process.

Officer Contributors Stewart Murray, Head of Planning & Environmental Protection Joe Henry, Planning Appeals & Enforcement Manager

Status (public or exempt) Public

Wards affected Borough – Wide

Enclosures None

For decision by Planning and Environment Committee

Function of Council

Reason for urgency / exemption from call

N/A

Contact for further information: Joe Henry, Appeals & Enforcement Telephone: 020 8 359 4620

1

1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That the committee note the contents of report and approve the

recommendations listed below, which seek to improve the process of defending planning decisions at appeal effectively and minimises risks to the Council.

(i) Undertake a wider review, as part of overview and scrutiny, as took

place in 2004/2005 where planning committees were circulated with an appeals performance report.

(ii) Clarify Member’s role in appeals, particularly hearing and public inquiry

cases.

(iii) Make any necessary adjustments to the Council’s Constitution or delegated scheme following a wider review.

(iv) All councillors who represent the Council on planning committees

undertake specific planning training relating to decision making and appeals.

(v) Given the complexity of planning hearings/inquiries and planning law,

particularly during cross-examination by appellant barristers, all witnesses (including councillors) should undertake appeals procedural training.

2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 Quarterly Overview and Scrutiny Committee reports on Planning Appeals 2004/2005 3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 Planning decisions including successful appeal decisions can contribute

towards the delivery of the Council’s five key priorities and the Three Strands Approach of Protection, Enhancement and Growth for sustainable first class suburbs and a cleaner greener Barnet.

4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 Planning appeals are potentially high risk to the Council in many instances

where the Council’s decisions on planning applications and other related planning matters, such as enforcement, are challenged by applicants/appellants and scrutinised by an independent Government Inspector from the Planning Inspectorate.

4.2 Appeals against refusal of planning decisions must be defended on “planning

grounds” or there is a risk of awards of costs against the Council if reasons for refusal do not relate to sound “planning” reasons and/or the actions of the Council are proven to be unreasonable.

2

5. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Defending refusals is resource intensive, particularly public inquiries where

counsel and external expert witnesses are often required to defend the Council’s position. The Planning & Environmental Protection Service has a small dedicated team of appeals officers, effectively 2 full time equivalent planners, who undertake the task of carrying out the statutory planning appeals functions. The Law and Probity Service provide advocacy support or instruct counsel in complex cases.

5.2 There is no budget within the Planning & Environmental Protection Service for

planning inquiry external costs or awards of costs against the Council. Therefore, each appeal is considered on its individual circumstances in terms of the level of investment and costs to defend the Council’s decisions

6. LEGAL ISSUES 6.1 There are specific rules and procedures governing planning appeals and it is

important to follow these strictly to avoid adverse decisions and possible cost implications.

7. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 7.1 Council function – Part 3 of the Constitution 7.2. Section 6 of Part 3 of the Constitution provides for delegation of decision making to the Head of Planning and Environmental Protection in specific circumstances and these are detailed in the delegated powers list published on the Council’s website at www.barnet.gov.uk/planning. 8 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 8.1 Councillor Daniel Hope raised a Members Item at the last Planning and

Environment Committee 29 March 2006 into the Council’s planning appeals procedures and delegation. The Committee resolved:

That the Head of Planning be instructed to review the current arrangements and delegation for planning appeals and report back to the next Committee suggesting improvements and seeking the Committee’s further instructions.

8.2 Under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended,

an applicant can appeal against a refusal of planning permission or imposition of condition. Under various other sections of the relevant Planning Acts, appeals can also be made against listed building, conservation area, tree, certificate and advert refusals and planning enforcement notices.

8.3 Appellant’s have the right to request that the appeal is considered under written

representation, informal hearing or public inquiry procedure. Each of these

3

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/planning

types of appeal has its own separate procedure outlined in the three separate Town and Country Planning Appeals Procedure Rules 2000 relating to the submission and presentation of evidence within set deadlines.

(i) Written representations procedure involves the submission of written

statements by both the appellant and Local Planning Authority to the Planning Inspectorate and determination of the application on its planning merits by a planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.

(ii) With an informal hearing written statements are again submitted on

behalf of both the appellant and local planning authority and both parties attend a pre-arranged public meeting with the inspector and there is verbal scrutiny of evidence. The inspector has a degree of discretion in who is allowed to speak and what evidence can be accepted but generally the meeting is not adversarial and neither party is permitted to undertake cross-examination.

(iii) In contrast public inquiries provide a quasi-judicial arena in which the

parties can challenge the merits of witnesses’ evidence and interpretation and scrutiny of planning law, procedures and material planning issues through cross-examination by advocates/counsel for both the Council and the appellant. For this reason public inquiries are the choice where the rewards are potentially the greatest and as a consequence are confrontational.

8.4 Hearings and inquiries have a high risk of costs being awarded against the

Council if the Council’s case is weak or reasons for refusal are considered unreasonable. Appellants are much more inclined to insist on public inquiries or hearings when they believe they have a strong case to win an appeal and claim costs for unreasonable behaviour. There has been a substantial increase recently in the number of officer recommendations being overturned at planning committees with a consequential risk of awards of costs against the council.

8.5 Section 6 of part 3 of the Council’s Constitution provides for the delegation of

decision making powers to Chief Officers. The Head of Planning and Environmental Protection’s delegated powers were agreed by the Committee on 30 November 2005. These allow for the determination of any application for planning permission submitted under the Town and Country Planning Acts (1.1) subject to the exceptions contained in that part. The progression of an application to appeal is merely a consequence of the formal decision making process. It is considered that matters such as date of hearing, choice of witnesses, procedure, costs applications, legal challenge etc are operational and vested in the Head of Service. Evidence submitted in support of the Council’s case is dictated by its reasons for refusal, and the identified policies.

8.6 The decision to lodge an appeal rests with an applicant and providing the

Rules are complied with the local planning authority is obliged to defend its position even in those circumstances where it has not made a formal decision

4

within the statutory period. Essentially the choice of procedure rests with the appellant and in circumstances where appellants request a hearing or inquiry the Planning Inspectorate will, notwithstanding any preference of the Local Planning Authority, always accede to this request.

8.7 Planning Committee and delegated refusals are always defended robustly to

the best of abilities and resources available. 8.8 Barnet’s planning appeals team has one of the largest number of appeals to

officer ratio in the whole country. The team comprises a Planning Appeals & Enforcement Manager (50% of time spent on appeals) one full time and one part time principal planning officers and one administration officer. As part of their training and to meet periods of high demand Development Control case officers will on occasions present evidence on their cases which proceed to appeal (approximately 3% of appeals).

8.9 Barnet ranks as the second busiest Local planning Authority dealing with

planning appeals (section 78) in the country (source: Planning Inspectorate statistics for period 1/7/05 to 31/12/05).

8.10 Barnet ranks seventh in London on the percentage of planning appeals

(section 78) dismissed (source: Planning Inspectorate statistics for period 1/7/05 to 31/12/05). Barnet’s planning refusal rate has historically been one of the highest in the country and even though steps have been taken to reduce refusal rates, the figure is still relatively high. Some Local Planning Authorities rank highly on the number of appeals dismissed because they have a low refusal rate. E.G. Tower Hamlets have a high success rate at appeal but they dealt with 11 Planning appeals (section 78) compared to Barnet’s 83 appeals for the same period. This indicates that Tower Hamlets has a very low refusal rate compared to Barnet’s.

8.11 During the period 2005/06 the success rate of appeals (i.e. number dismissed)

was as follows: Committee (P & E) decisions - 20%, Sub-Committees decisions - 50% & delegated decisions - 67%. These figures for committee success rates include officer recommendations to refuse planning permission.

8.12 Where planning committee or sub-committee decisions are taken to refuse

planning applications against officer’s advice and these have subsequently gone to appeal and hearings or public inquiries it has been on occasion the practice that those councillors that moved a motion for refusal have attended the hearing/inquiry as a witness to defend the Council’s decision. In such cases officers and legal teams will offer advice to the Member regarding the defence case and the appeal procedures in order to minimise risks to the council. On most occasions there will be a professional witness either an officer or external expert consultant, to assist the council’s case or a member witness. It is vitally important where councillors and any council witness gives evidence that they have some form of appeals training or briefing and stick only to “planning grounds” in their evidence so as to avoid any claims of unreasonableness and risk awards of costs.

5

8.13 Where councillors move motions for refusal against officer’s advice and an appeal hearing or inquiry results but an officer represents the Council as the key witness it is important that as far as the legal planning framework permits the officer giving evidence best and robustly represents the decision of the committee and reasons for refusal. This is the norm in Barnet’s case providing these original members’ reasons for refusal are “sound” and can be sustained in planning terms and evidence. Where there is no evidence to support committee reasons the Council’s case is likely to be weak and at greater risk of costs. In such cases where reasons are not sustainable or weak, officers or external consultants giving the evidence on behalf of the Council use their skills and best professional expertise to minimise the risks of losing the appeal and an award of costs on grounds of being unreasonable. Appeals and inquiry rules provide for the witness to express their own professional view of the case, even where this may not entirely accord with the views of elected members, although in reality officers use their best endeavours to represent the committee view, where reasonable.

9 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 9.1 Planning & Environment Committee 29 March 2006: Members Item from

Councillor Daniel Hope. 9.2 Barnet Adopted Unitary Development 1991 and Revised Unitary Development

Plan (draft February 2006). 9.3 Various Overview and Scrutiny Committee papers dated 2004/05, subject

Appeals Performance. 9.4 Appeal papers and Planning Inspectorate decisions held on public planning

files, LB Barnet Planning Service. 9.5 Anyone wishing to inspect these papers should contact the Council’s Planning

(Appeals and Enforcement) Service on 020 8359 4620. Legal:SM SC CFO: PJA

6

LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET


HENDON AREA

7th June 2006

Agenda Item No.9

Report of the Head of Planning & Environmental Protection

BACKGROUND PAPERS – GENERAL STATEMENT The background papers to the reports contained in the agenda items which follow comprise the application and relevant planning history files, which may be identified by their reference numbers, and other documents where they are specified as a background paper in individual reports. These files and documents may be inspected at: HENDON AREA OFFICE Barnet House 1255 High Road Whetstone London N20 0EJ Contact Officer: Mrs Vivian Bell, 020 8359 4672

7


HENDON AREA

DATE:7th June 2006

INDEX TO THE REPORT HEAD OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ______________________________________________________________ W02450L/06 Hendon 9 - 12 St Mary & St John School, Prothero Gardens, London, NW4 3SL. Construction of a single storey detached nursery building and playground and associated provision of parking spaces. APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS ______________________________________________________________ W14364/06 Mill Hill 13 - 16 Finchley Golf Club, Nether Court, Frith Lane, London, NW7 1PU. Replacement of greenkeeper storage building. APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS ______________________________________________________________ W14364A/06 Mill Hill 17 - 20 Finchley Golf Club, Nether Court, Frith Lane, Mill Hill, London, NW7 1PU. Reconstruction of existing 1920's extension using reclaimed materials. APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

8

LOCATION: St Mary & St John School, Prothero Gardens, London, NW4 3SL.

REFERENCE: W02450L/06 Received: 9 May 2006 Accepted: 9 May 2006WARD: Hendon Expiry: 4 Jul 2006 Final Revisions:APPLICANT: The Governors PROPOSAL: Construction of a single storey detached nursery

building and playground and associated provision of parking spaces.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

1. This development must be begun within 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004.

2. Before the development hereby permitted is occupied the parking spaces shown on Plan No. 05/172/22C shall be provided and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles in connection with the approved development. Reason: To ensure that parking is provided in accordance with the council's standards in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety, the free flow of traffic and in order to protect the amenities of the area.

INFORMATIVE(S):-

9

1. The plans accompanying this application are:-Site Location Plan; 05/172/21/B; 05/172/22C; 05/172/23B; 05/172/26; 05/172/27B

2. The reasons for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision are as follows: - i) The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004), the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991), and the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan - Post Direction Modifications (February 2006). In particular the following polices are relevant:

Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1; G2; T1.1; T1.2; EDN2.1; EDN3.1 Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan - Post Direction Modifications (February 2006): GBEnv1; GBEnv2; D1; D2; D3; D8; Gparking; M14; CS4; CS6 ii) The proposal is acceptable for the following reason(s): - The development would not detract from the character and appearance of the locality or harm the amenities of neighbouring residents.

1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G2, T1.1; T1.2; EDN2.1; EDN3.1 Revised Deposit Draft UDP - Post Direction Modifications (February 2006): GBEnv1; GBEnv2; D1; D2; D3; D8; GParking; M14; CS4; CS6 Consultations and Views Expressed: Neighbours Consulted: 33 Replies: 0 The report was written during the statutory consultation period and therefore any further representations will be reported at the meeting. Internal Highways Group – No objection to the proposal on highway grounds. 2. PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings The application relates to a primary school accessed via Prothero Gardens. The application is bounded on three sides by residential properties. To the west is the Watford Way, a very busy arterial road characterised by a mix of commercial and residential uses. The school grounds, which occupy an elevated position, are screened from the road by existing trees within the school site. Proposal A new single storey nursery building is proposed, sited approx 7m’s from the Watford Way and 6m’s from the adjoining commercial garage. The nursery, and associated playground, would occupy the site of an existing car park for 16 cars.

10

The nursery would have a footprint of 17.3m’s by 11.4m’s with a height to ridged roof of 5.7m’s. The car park fronting the existing school would be enlarged with further spaces accommodated on the access road. In all 29 car parking spaces would be provided (at present the school has 24 spaces).

Material Planning Considerations The nursery school would complement the existing educational facilities on the site without compromising the character of the locality. Further, the site is sited a sufficient distance from residents to ensure that the building or its use would not impact on the amenities of surrounding occupiers. The additional car parking spaces would encroach onto a small area of the school’s playing fields. The additional spaces would adjoin the existing car park and access road and, by reason of the marginal loss of green space, would not compromise the school’s landscape setting or the play space available to the pupils. 3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS No objections received. 4. CONCLUSION It is considered that this proposal would provide a valuable addition to the borough’s pre-school educational provision. The proposed block and additional parking would not detract from the character and appearance of the locality, or the amenities of residents, and accordingly it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

11

St Mary & St John School, Prothero Gardens, NW4 3SL

W02450L/06

Scale 1 : 1250

12

Based on the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. London Borough of Barnet LA086290 2003

Location of proposed building

Prothero Gardens

Watford Way

LOCATION: Finchley Golf Club, Nether Court, Frith Lane, London,

NW7 1PU.

REFERENCE: W14364/06 Received: 21 Feb 2006 Accepted: 9 Mar 2006WARD: Mill Hill Expiry: 4 May 2006 Final Revisions:APPLICANT: Finchley Golf Club PROPOSAL: Replacement of greenkeeper storage building.



INFORMATIVE(S):-

1. 1. The plans accompanying this application are:- site plan, 1/6, 2/6, 3/6, 4/6, 5/6, 6/6,

2. The reasons for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision are as follows: - i) The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan, Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit Draft Modifications, approved 28 June 2005. In particular the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G4, T1.1, O1.1 and O1.4 Revised Deposit Draft UDP - Post Direction Modifications (February 2006): GBEnv1, Green Belt, D1, D2, D7, O1, O2 and O11 ii) The proposal is acceptable for the following reason(s): - The proposal is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the greenbelt and would not be detrimental to its character or appearance. It accords with all the following policies.

13

1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Relevant UDP Policies The London Plan (published 10 February 2004) Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G4, T1.1, O1.1 and O1.4 Revised Deposit Draft UDP - Post Direction Modifications (February 2006): GBEnv1, Green Belt, D1, D2, D7, O1, O2 and O11 Planning Policy Guidence 2: Green belts Relevant Planning History NONE Consultations and views Expressed Neighbours Consulted: 16 Replies: 0 Application advertised on site: Notice dated 23.03.06. PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings The application relates to the Finchley Golf Club accessed via The Paddocks off Frith Lane. The Golf Club is located within the Green Belt. Proposal The application proposes the demolition of the existing green keepers storage building and the erection of a replacement structure. The existing building is 22m deep and 8m wide. The proposed structure would be located in the same position but would have a larger footprint, being 18m wide and 18m deep. It would be 6.2m high with a hipped roof and would have an Olive green finish. Material considerations Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts states “provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in Green Belts”. Whilst not a dwelling, the proposed building is considered an essential facility for an outdoor sport, which preserves the openness of the Green Belt. Whilst the floor area of the proposed building would be larger that of the existing, it would be well screened by existing planting and banks and would not detract from the landscape value of this part of the green belt.

14

3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS No objections received. 4. CONCLUSION The proposed structure in terms of its size, design and use is considered to be compatible with the purposes and objectives of the greenbelt and would not be detrimental to its character or appearance.

15

Finchley Golf Club, Nether Court, Frith Lane, NW7 1PU

W14364/06

Scale 1 :1 250

16


Westlinton Close

Frith Lane

Nether Court

PROPOSED BUILDING

LOCATION: Finchley Golf Club, Nether Court, Frith Lane, Mill Hill,

London, NW7 1PU.

REFERENCE: W14364A/06 Received: 29 Mar 2006 Accepted: 29 Mar 2006WARD: Mill Hill Expiry: 24 May 2006 Final Revisions:APPLICANT: Finchley Golf Club PROPOSAL: Reconstruction of existing 1920's extension using

reclaimed materials.


17


2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building(s) shall match those used in the existing building(s). Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the building and the surrounding area.

3. Before the development hereby permitted commences on site, details of all extraction and ventilation equipment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in accordance with agreed details before the use is commenced. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment or amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

4. No site works or works on this development shall be commenced before temporary fencing has been erected around existing tree(s) in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This fencing shall remain in position until after the development works are completed and no material or soil shall be stored within these fenced areas. Reason: To safeguard the health of existing tree(s) which represent an important amenity feature.

INFORMATIVE(S):-

1. The plans accompanying this application are:- IPM386.1/PL01; PM386.1/PL02; PM386.1/PL05; PM386.1/PL06; PM386.1/PL07; PM386.1/PL08; PM386.1/PL09; PM386.1/PL11; PM386.1/PL12; PM386.1/PL13; PM386.1/PL14; PM386.1/PL15

2. The reasons for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision are as follows: - i) The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan, Unitary Development Plan Revised Deposit Draft Modifications, approved 28 June 2005. In particular the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G4, T1.1, O1.1 and O1.4 Revised Deposit Draft UDP - Post Direction Modifications (February 2006): GBEnv1, Green Belt, D1, D2, D7, O1, O2 and O11 ii) The proposal is acceptable for the following reason(s): - The proposal is compatible with the purposes and objectives of the greenbelt and would not be detrimental to its character or appearance.

1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Relevant UDP Policies The London Plan (published 10 February 2004) Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G4, T1.1, O1.1 and O1.4 Revised Deposit Draft UDP - Post Direction Modifications (February 2006): GBEnv1, Green Belt, D1, D2, D7, O1, O2 and O11 Planning Policy Guidence 2: Green belts Relevant Planning History None Consultations and views Expressed Neighbours Consulted: 16 Replies: 0 The report was written during the statutory consultation period and therefore any representations received will be reported at the meeting.

18

2. PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings The application relates to the Finchley Golf Club accessed via The Paddocks off Frith Lane. The Golf Club is located within the Green Belt. Proposal The application proposes the erection of a two-storey side extension to

replace the existing side wing, which has been substantially demolished. The extension would incorporate a basement with the first floor accommodated in the gable ended pitch roof. The demolished extension had a floor area of 69.1 sq metres. The proposed extension would have a floor area of 145.9 sq metres.

The stonework, bricks and tiles of the demolished building will be reclaimed for use in the extension. Additional materials required will match those existing. Material Planning Considerations Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts states “provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in Green Belts”. Whilst not a dwelling the clubhouse is an essential facility for an outdoor sport which preserves the openness of the Green Belt. The floor area of the proposed extension would be double that of the demolished side projection but would be relatively modest when placed in the context of the original club house building . The design of the extension would complement the character and appearance of the building, would not impact on the open character of this part of the Green Belt and would not result in the loss of trees or landscaped areas being sited on the footprint of the demolished extension. 3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS No objections received. 4. CONCLUSION The proposed extension would not unduly impact on the character and appearance of this part of the Green Belt, nor detract from its landscape quality and openness. Accordingly it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

19

Finchley Golf Club, Nether Court, Frith Lane, NW7 1PU

W14364A/06

Scale 1 : 1250

20


Westlinton Close

Frith Lane

Nether Court

PROPOSED EXTENSION

Documents

MEETING PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATE …