The Planning Committee of Barnet Council met to discuss several planning applications, including a deferred application for Windmill Cottage, a new warehouse, a car park redevelopment, and an extension to a property on Birkbeck Road. The committee approved the conversion of a barn into a dwelling at Windmill Cottage, approved the construction of a new warehouse on Hampden Road, and approved the installation of an awning on Hodford Road, but refused an application for a car park redevelopment on Castle Road.

• Windmill Cottage Barn Conversion
• Hampden Road Warehouse
• Castle Road Car Park Redevelopment
• Birkbeck Road Extension
• Hodford Road Awning
• King George Playing Field Clubhouse
• High Road Additional Story

Windmill Cottage Barn Conversion

The committee considered two applications (24/4469/FUL and 24/4470/LBC) related to Windmill Cottage, Brickfield Lane, Barnet, specifically the conversion of an existing barn into a single dwelling house. These applications had been deferred from a previous meeting. The first application concerned the conversion of the barn into a house, and the second concerned listed building consent¹.

The planning officer presented the proposed site plan, existing and proposed floor plans, and elevations. The officer stated that the application was recommended for refusal due to the impact of domestic paraphernalia on the openness of the green belt².

However, the committee had previously been minded not to refuse the application. The officer then ran through the list of conditions that would be applied if the application were to be approved.

Steve Gray, chairman of Hadley Football Club, spoke in favour of the proposal, stating that the club's car park entrance and clubhouse are directly opposite the barn. He added that the barn looked unsafe and in definite need of attention, and that the Hadley Football Club and the Arkley Association fully supported the proposal.

Marcus Constantine, the applicant, stated that he and his wife had purchased the property in 2021 and had worked closely with officers and statutory consultees to improve the design. He stated that there were no objections from Historic England, Barnet's conservation officer, or the Barnet Society. He argued that the only issue raised by officers was whether domestic items would cause substantial harm to the openness of the green belt.

Councillor Humayune Khalick asked the applicant if he was happy to comply with the conditions. The applicant confirmed that he was happy to agree to the listed conditions, with potentially minor wordings to be discussed. Councillor Elliot Simberg congratulated the applicant on the plan and asked if any of the conditions were onerous. The applicant replied that none of them were. Councillor Kamal Bahadur Gurung asked about the method of work statement and how it would shape the building. The applicant replied that they wanted to maintain the feeling of the site and be respectful of the history of the building.

The committee then voted on the application. Councillor Richard Barnes proposed that the application be approved, and Councillor Humayune Khalick seconded the proposal. The committee voted unanimously in favour of the proposal, and the application was approved.

The committee then voted on the second application for listed building consent. Councillor Kamal Bahadur Gurung proposed that the application be approved, and Councillor Richard Barnes seconded the proposal. The committee voted unanimously in favour of the proposal, and the application was approved.

Hampden Road Warehouse

The committee considered an application (25/3003/FUL and [Supplementary report - Item 10 - Warehouse Hampden Road N10 2PA Friern Barnet - 253003FUL 23r.pdf]) for the demolition of an existing warehouse and the erection of a new warehouse with associated ancillary office space on Hampden Road. The planning officer presented the site location plan, aerial view, and site photos. The officer stated that the proposed scheme was effectively a replacement of the existing warehouse with a comparable revision of the floor space. The officer added that there were a number of conditions recommended relating to the hours of use to control levels of noise and activity on the site. The officer concluded that the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Anthea Ranjit Singh, a resident of Howden Close, spoke about the vulnerabilities of tenants, leaseholders, and freeholders in the area. She requested further mitigations, including careful scheduling of construction work times to minimise noise, reconsideration of the proposed secure glass windows overlooking homes and gardens, and ensuring leaseholders and freeholders are not burdened with costs for repairs or impacts caused by the development.

Councillor Humayune Khalick asked about the impact on parking. The planning officer clarified that the area where vans were parked was being extended, and the vans would be delivering from the front part of the site. Councillor Richard Barnes observed that some of the concerns raised by Ms Ranjit Singh should be covered by the conditions given to the construction.

Jonathan Butler, the project architect, spoke in support of the application. He stated that the client had a long-standing business delivering car parts and that the warehouse was extremely dilapidated, impractical, and inefficient. He added that the replacement building would have a very similar footprint to the existing one. He also stated that there had been proactive engagement with the planning authority through various formal processes.

Councillor Richard Barnes asked about the noise and the construction. Mr Butler replied that there were conditions in the application which seek to restrict the working hours of the construction phase. Councillor Humayune Khalick asked if the windows would be obscured glass. Mr Butler confirmed that there was a condition being imposed for the glazing to be obscured. Councillor Humayune Khalick then asked about the increase in height of the building and the effect on light. Mr Butler replied that there had been due consultation with a daylighting assessment and that the wall that sits adjacent to Howden Close is no higher than the wall that is there now.

Councillor Richard Barnes wanted to clarify about the height and how the design process was trying to mitigate any harm from that. The planning officer clarified that the height of the wall in the proposed scheme is no higher than the existing wall.

The committee voted in favour of the officer's recommendation to approve the application, and the application was approved.

Castle Road Car Park Redevelopment

The committee considered an application (25/0632/FUL) for the redevelopment of an existing car park between Castle Mews and 7 Castle Road, London, to provide 20 residential dwellings. The planning officer presented the site location plan, aerial view, and site images. The officer stated that the scheme provides 20 residential dwellings, of which 36.5% would be affordable housing. The officer added that the impact on neighbouring properties had been minimised and mitigated as much as possible through the design-led approach and the topology. The officer concluded that the application was recommended for approval subject to a section 106 agreement³ and conditions.

Katherine Sprecher, a resident of 7 Castle Road, spoke in objection to the proposal. She stated that the scheme would place 31 new neighbours within two metres of her home and that the proposal erodes the character of the area. She added that the scheme fails Barnet's own standards and that there are no blue badge spaces or lifts, discriminating against disabled and elderly residents.

Councillor Kamal Bahadur Gurung asked about the hedgehogs and blue badge provision. Ms Sprecher replied that she loved hedgehogs but that mobilising people in wheelchairs is critical to a development. Councillor Humayune Khalick asked about the nuisance that so many houses may provide in terms of smell and noise. Ms Sprecher replied that she had just been imprisoned and did not think it was fair.

Alice Brownford, from Peter Barber Architects, spoke in support of the application. She stated that the proposals provide 20 high-quality, highly sustainable new homes and that the new homes are very carefully designed as little cottages along the mews. She added that the proposals secure the existing rear boundaries of adjacent homes, improving privacy and security for local residents.

Councillor Richard Barnes asked about the proximity to the other houses in Castle Mews and the effect on daylight and sunlight into those houses. Ms Brownford replied that there are new trees planted down the middle of those so that they are benefiting from the additional landscaping and biodiversity of the proposal. Councillor Kamal Bahadur Gurung asked about fire brigade access. Ms Brownford replied that there was a full fire strategy report which relies on some of those units being sprinkled. Councillor Kamal Bahadur Gurung asked about car parking. Ms Brownford replied that it was deemed a very suitable site for a car-free development.

Councillor Elliot Simberg stated that he had a concern regarding discrimination in place against persons of disability. Ms Brownford replied that the challenges about providing car parking on site is obviously the loss of additional homes meeting housing need. Liam Lawson Jones from DP9 added that the initial plan was to provide that parking provision on street and in discussion with officers and the highways team in particular it was their request that that was removed.

Councillor Richard Barnes stated that there is barely any parking in that road and he was nonplussed to think how anybody with a blue badge will be able to park anywhere near the development. Ms Brownford replied that anyone who is eligible for a blue badge is able to apply for one and others who may have young children will be actively wanting to live that sustainable lifestyle.

Councillor Elliot Simberg stated that disability access is quite important and not everyone with disability can drive. Ms Brownford replied that most of the units are m42⁴ which means they are future proof.

She added that when they're designing pedestrian mews developments they're thinking about social connectivity and loneliness.

The planning officer stated that the majority of units are designed to be m42 and that 10% of the units have to be what we call as m43 accessible. The officer added that there is obviously an adverse impact on disabled parking space users.

Councillor Humayune Khalick asked about overlooking and how closely the properties are to the existing mews. The planning officer replied that the distance varies from 3.7 to 2.5 towards the rear. Councillor Humayune Khalick stated that 9.1 meters was very small compared to our usual standards or recommendations. The planning officer replied that this is a town centre site where policy does promote optimisation of existing town centre brownfield sites. Councillor Humayune Khalick asked what the depth of the gardens was. The planning officer replied that it would be about 2 meters.

The committee voted on the application. Two councillors voted in favour of approval, and three councillors voted for refusal. Councillor Elliot Simberg proposed a refusal, stating that it was somewhat of an over development making it too close and impacting on the amenities of existing residents. Councillor Humayune Khalick seconded the proposal, adding that he did not feel there was enough mitigating circumstance for the loss of this disabled parking. The committee voted to refuse the application.

Birkbeck Road Extension

The committee considered an application (25/3573/HSE) for a single-storey side/rear extension with four roof lights at 87 Birkbeck Road, London. The planning officer presented the report, noting that there was an extant planning permission on the site and that the only difference between the extant permission and the current application was an additional 0.1 meter of the boundary fence being removed and replaced with the wall.

Danielle Rose, the applicant, stated that the proposal was almost identical to the scheme approved in July and that the only alteration was that the flank wall has been moved approximately 10 centimeters to straddle the party wall. She added that the neighbours at number 85 had already agreed to this change in August through a signed formal party wall agreement.

Councillor Richard Barnes asked if the eaves of the hanging next door property would be affected. Ms Rose replied that they would not.

The committee voted in favour of the officer's recommendation to approve the application, and the application was approved.

Hodford Road Awning

The committee considered an application (25/3412/FUL) for the installation of an awning at Flat 46, 1B Hodford Road, London. The planning officer presented the site location plan, aerial view, and site photos. The officer stated that the awning would be across the balcony area and would measure approximately six meters wide and 2.3 meters deep. The officer added that the next-door neighbour has got an identical awning and that it was not considered that it would result in any character impact or amenity impact. The officer concluded that the application was recommended for approval.

As the applicant was a sitting councillor, Councillor Claire Farrier noted that the application had to come to the committee.

The committee voted in favour of the officer's recommendation to approve the application, and the application was approved.

King George Playing Field Clubhouse

The committee considered an application (21/2543/FUL) for a clubhouse, changing rooms, and associated car parking area for the new Gaelic football club at King George Playing Field, Barnet. The planning officer presented the site location plan, aerial view, and site photos. The officer stated that the application came before a previous committee back in 2021 and that the building structure was approved back in 21. The officer added that during the course of the drafting of the agreement, it came to light that there is a water mains crossing across the site and Affinity Water objected to the structure being built. The officer concluded that the application was still recommended for approval subject to the section 106 approval.

Declan Ryan, chairman of St Kiernan's Gaelic Football Club, stated that the club has been operating in the borough for nearly 40 years and has 300 kids that play Gaelic football. He added that the existing changing facilities are steel containers and are not adequate for the club's needs.

Councillor Kamal Bahadur Gurung asked why Affinity Water had previously rejected the application. The planning officer replied that the building that was approved was an L-shaped and the water mains were coming underneath that area. Mr Ryan interjected that the previous building that was built in the 1990s didn't get permission to build over it.

The committee voted in favour of the officer's recommendation to approve the application, and the application was approved.

High Road Additional Story

The committee considered an application (25/0602/OUT) for an additional story comprising six self-contained flats at 706 High Road. The planning officer presented the application, noting that it was an outline application with details of appearance, access, layout, and scales submitted in detail with landscaping reserved. The officer stated that the site is located within the North Finchley town centre boundary and that the scheme comprises the provision of six residential units. The officer concluded that the application is recommended for approval subject to a section 106 agreement and conditions.

Lawrence Barami, a leaseholder at 706 High Road, stated that the building height and safety information before the committee was inaccurate and that the building's true height would exceed 18 meters. He added that the building is not structurally sound to take the next floor on and that the refuse area is already under pressure.

Councillor Elliot Simberg asked what basis Mr Barami had for saying that the building is not structurally sound. Mr Barami replied that there was a report that was carried out by Zachary, a planning consultant. Councillor Elliot Simberg asked if the applicant has shown the officers a structural engineer's report that says it is safe. Mr Barami replied that the directors of the management company are the same people who are doing the development and that they've had numerous problems with them in the past.

Michael Kutra, speaking on behalf of the applicant, stated that the scheme has been assessed against local and national policy and ultimately recommends approval. He added that the additional floor continues the strong architectural art deco rhythm and proportions of the existing building.

Councillor Elliot Simberg asked about the height issue and the lifts. Mr Kutra replied that the comments raised with regards to the heights have been incorrectly assessed by the residents of the building and that they are 600 mil below the threshold limit. He added that the existing provisions for the lift and the existing provisions for all vertical access is compliance with requirements.

Councillor Elliot Simberg asked about the structural integrity of the building and the bin stores. Mr Kutra replied that prior to them even looking at developing the scheme their chartered structural engineers reviewed this and that they have a fully justified scheme structurally. He added that in combination with a management plan there is sufficient space in there for the additional flats.

Councillor Anne Hutton stated that she had received strong objections from many residents of 706 High Road and the surrounding area and that the site wasn't designed to accommodate an additional floor. She added that there were queries about whether or not the adequate space below for refuge.

Councillor Elliot Simberg asked what the objections would be regarding the design of this building. Councillor Hutton replied that she understood when she looked at the plans that it was going to be an extra story and the building as itself is a substantial building area.

The planning officer stated that the applicant has set out the finished floor levels and the heights and that it falls below the agency paying gateway one threshold. The officer added that the case officer liaised with the council's street scene team and they hadn't raised no objections to it.

The committee voted in favour of the officer's recommendation to approve the application, and the application was approved.