Issue - meetings

PROPOSAL:  change of use of from nursing home (Class C2) to a registered nursery (Class D1) (prior approval of transport and highways impacts of the development, contamination and flooding risks on the site and impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development).

The Committee received representations from David Glassman (objector),  and Sati Panesar (agent for the applicant).  The objector and the agent for the applicant outlined their reasons for seeking refusal, and approval, of the application, respectively.

The Committee also received representations from Councillor John Hinkley and Councillor Jean Lammiman, who both outlined reasons for seeking refusal of the application.

Members expressed misgivings on the credibility of the Noise Impact Assessment, and were concerned about its accuracy on the proportion of parents undertaking journeys to the nursery by walking, private car or other means.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal for the following reason:

1)            the submitted Noise Impact Assessment was lacking in credibility and therefore it fails to realistically assess the general disturbance and noise associated with this use of the site and from the comings and goings to the site by visitors and users of the site and along the street and potential impact thereon upon the quality of life for neighbouring residents.  The proposal is therefore not in compliance with provision T.2. (b) (ii) of Class T, Part 32, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015, as amended.  In the absence of realistic and believable information, the proposal has the potential to have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring residents, contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy 7.15B of The London Plan (2016), Policy D14 Publication London Plan (2020) and Policy DM1 of Harrow's Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).

The proposal was seconded, put to the vote and agreed.

The Committee resolved to refuse officer recommendations, and delegated authority  to the Interim Chief Planning Officer to finalise the wording for the refusal in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was asked to:

1)            agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report; and

2)            grant prior approval subject to the subject to authority being delegated to the Interim Chief Planning Officer to issue the planning permission after the expiry of the site notice publication, being the 19 February 2021 and taking into full consideration any further new material planning consideration, other than that has already been addressed in this report and reported to the Planning Committee by the addendum or supplemental addendum and subject to amendments to the conditions (if required) listed in Appendix 1 of the report.

DECISION:  REFUSE

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to refuse the application was by a majority of votes.

Councillors Ali, Ashton, Baxter, Brown, Maru and Patel voted to refuse the application.

Councillor Robson abstained from voting.