The numbers of planning applications being determined by the Finchley and Golders Green Planning sub committee are fewer and fewer. Whether this is down to the recession or whether it is because of the tighter rules on what can now come to committee is unclear.

The meeting last week was no less interesting for there being so few planning applications. Even a local Reporter turned up. The Committee voted against the change of use of premises in The High Road East Finchley. The applicant wanted to open a mini cab office. Over 200 local residents had signed a petition opposing the application.

Less straight forward was an application in Winnington Close N2. The Close is considered by some to be a pretty exclusive road. Its rumoured Colonel Gaddaffi’s son may be in residence the houses are very large. The application concerned a house already built. The developer had permission for one flank window but was asking for a change to the approved plan. Instead of one window there would be two windows and a door.

The neighbours smelt a rat. They believe that an integral garage is being used as a habitable room. One objector pointed out when he addressed the Committee that although the drawings showed a proposal for two windows and a door, what had already been built was two doors and one window. We then saw a photograph which clearly showed two doors and one window Are you following so far? The planning officers advised we could only determine the application according to the submitted drawings, i.e. two windows and one door. Yes there were in reality two doors and one window but we were not to consider that this evening. Rules are rules we must only vote on what are contained on the drawings. I am getting a headache just writing this.

So we were being asked to approve a proposed change to the original design but what was being proposed could not be implemented because it was clear that the developer had already made the changes which did not match his own drawings. Are you still with me? Never mind, we were told, enforcement action would be taken if we passed the submitted plans then developer built something different. But he has built something different we pointed out. The planning officers stuck to the rules we Councillors thought differently. We sent it back for the applicant to sort out.

By way of a post script; As usual we made site visits prior to the meeting. At one property one of my Councillor colleagues left his car in the road for a few moments. He returned to find a fixed penalty notice. He shrugged his shoulder “ah well that’s down to me to pay “. Take notice Members of Parliament.