Petition Closed

To revoke the use of Barnet London Borough Strap line "Putting the Community First"

This petition had 308 supporters

Dear John

As you may be aware the 28th of September refusal was overturned at last night 25th of October planning application 17/2248/FUL “Paddy Power”  in less than a month on the condition on the hypothesis of an appeal.

The hearing was biased towards Paddy Power and the 5 refusal points had not been thoroughly examined  and conditions not valid: see full explanation below

Reason 1: The proposed sui generis use would fail to comply with the previously approved flexible A1/A2/A3 use, contrary to DM12 of Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012)  

This is not a strong reason for refusal due to the original planning permission allowing A2 uses which would have included betting shops at that time. The permission was granted in December 2014 before the changes to the Use Classes Order were made in April 2015, and betting shops were not excluded from the approved uses set out in the decision notice for H/05856/13.

Reason 2: The proposal has failed to provide evidence of effective marketing of an A1 use or any of the other uses previously approved under application H/05856/13 for this unit or any of the other units within the 128 Colindale Avenue parade contrary to part iv of the policy DM12 of Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012)

The unit should have been marketed prior to the submission of the application and fully endorse this reason for refusal. The officer report states that a marketing strategy is not required. However consideration should be given to fact the unit is new and has never been occupied and its permitted use includes A1 use and therefore marketing is required according to policy DM12 of the Development Management Policies DPD. Furthermore there is protection to the permitted uses of the unit provided by condition 9 of the original planning permission, which states:

Upon their first occupation, the commercial units on the ground floor of the buildings hereby approved shall be occupied for uses falling within Class A1, A2, A3 or D1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and for no other purpose.

The imposition of condition 10 also requires planning permission for any subsequent change of use after first occupation and commencement of a use. This demonstrates the Council’s intention at that time to retain appropriate uses in this location in order to safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties, forming an integral part of the creation of a neighbourhood centre on Colindale Avenue in accordance with the Colindale Area Action Plan.

The application site is not in an existing centre or parade but is an isolated unit with A1 (shop) consent (amongst the other permitted uses) and therefore should be subject to the four policy tests in DM12 of Development Management Policies DPD. It is accepted that the proposal would comply with the first two tests as, due to the small size of the unit, it cannot be demonstrated that the proposal would lead to a significant reduction in shopping facilities, and alternative shopping facilities exist in the area. However with regard to criteria iii, the proposal does not meet an identified local need and this is evidenced through the high number of objections from local residents, businesses, Local Councillors, from local education establishments, the local Mental Health Trust and the Metropolitan Police. There is no policy basis in either Local Plan policies or the Colindale Area Action Plan which identifies a sui generis betting shop use as meeting a local need. Furthermore, with regard to criteria iv, the permitted use of the unit includes A1 use and the application is not supported by any evidence of marketing. Therefore it is unknown what demand there is for the A1 use, although it is likely demand would exist due to the unit being new, vacant and in a densely populated vibrant area.

The application therefore fails to comply with policy DM12 as whole (not just criteria iv stated in the reason for refusal), as the wording of the policy requires all four criteria to be satisfied. The reason for refusal should be amended accordingly.

Also aware of instances where local residents have contacted the landowners Fairview New Homes Ltd to enquire about the availability of the commercial units at this development, but have been advised all units are sold, or their enquiries remain unanswered. Evidence can be provided if required.

Reason 3: The proposed change of use will result in noise and disturbance to nearby residential amenities, in particular residential units of 128 Colindale Avenue, contrary to policy 7.15B (parts a and b) of the London Plan (2016) and part d of policy DM04 of Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

Reason 4: The proposed betting shop would result in anti-social behaviour which would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of local residential occupiers, contrary to policy 7.3B of the London Plan policy (2016), part d of policy DM01 of Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012)

Concerned regarding the impact of the development on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties and fully support a reason for refusal on this basis. It is important to consider the specific circumstances of this site as it is different to the majority of betting shops, as the site forms part of the ground floor of a densely populated high-rise development with a large number of residential properties in close proximity and therefore the proposals will impact on a greater number of people. It is for this reason that the Council imposed planning conditions 9 and 10 on the original planning permission, in order to control the potential use of the units to safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties.

It has been requested that reasons 3 and 4 are amalgamated into one reason based on an inappropriate mix of uses and failure to minimise the fear of crime, resulting in a significant negative impact on the amenities of occupiers of nearby residential properties. A betting shop is an unneighbourly use due to the proposed opening hours and associations with crime and anti-social behaviour which are confirmed by the objections raised by the Metropolitan Police. A betting shop would be inappropriate in this location within this newly established densely populated residential area, including a high proportion of students, and in proximity to several education establishments and a mental health rehabilitation facility, which results in an inappropriate mix of uses and a fear of crime. The proposals are contrary to policy DM01 and DM04 of Development Management Policies DPD and policies 7.15 and 7.3 of the London Plan in this regard.

Reason 5: The proposed betting shop would not be usable to all members of the local community and would therefore fail to comply with policy CS6 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012)

A betting shop use has a very limited focus, and fully endorse a reason for refusal based on the use not being accessible to the whole community in the same way as a café or shop. The officer report states that there are other A1/A2/A3 uses which do not serve all members of the community such as an estate agent, however the CVRA do not agree that this is a relevant comparison. The unit has permission for A1/A2 and A3 uses and the majority of these uses would be accessible to the whole community. It is important to secure the provision of a genuine facility accessible to the whole community in this location as the area is now densely populated from major new residential developments as well as the existing residential properties that already existed prior to the development. Again, this is why the Council imposed conditions on the original planning permission for the development so that the future uses of the units could be controlled, in the interests of residential amenity.

The drafted reason for refusal relates the harm to policy CS6 of the Local Plan Core Strategy. Policy CS6 relates to promoting Barnet’s Town Centres and is therefore not relevant and assumed to be an error. It is suggested that the policy basis for this reason for refusal is amended to policy CS5 ‘Protecting and Enhancing Barnet’s Character to create High Quality Places’ and policy CS10 ‘Enabling Inclusive and Integrated Community Facilities and Uses’.

To Summarise

We ask as a community to be listened and it is now more than one occasion that the council councillor committee have not taken on board its community requirements and now its time for the Barnet London Borough to stop using its Council strap line wording "Putting the Community First" as seen as on the attached slide for all documentation printed, online and other media until the Council listens to its community.

As CEO Barnet London Borough I ask that your overturn last nights decision and "Putting the Community First" as the community has lost trust.

Kindest regards,

Joey Skye 

Today: Joey is counting on you

Joey Skye needs your help with “John Hooton: To revoke the use of Barnet London Borough "Putting the Community First"”. Join Joey and 307 supporters today.