Issue - meetings

2/05, 115 Parkside Way, Harrow HA2 6DB, P/0183/21

Meeting: 09/06/2021 - Planning Committee (Item 319)

319 2/05, 115 Parkside Way, Harrow HA2 6DB, P/0183/21 pdf icon PDF 867 KB

Minutes:

PROPOSAL:  alterations and extension to raise roof height over single storey front to side extension; pitched roof to front porch; installation of two air conditioning units to rear (retrospective).

 

The Committee received representation from Alia Lewis, who spoke on behalf of her parents, Mr and Mrs Hack (objectors).  They urged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

The Committee also received representation from Avani and Manoj Trivedi (applicants) who requested the Committee to approve the application.

 

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal for the following reason:

 

1)              the proposed development had an inappropriate siting of the two air-conditioning units, which would be harmful to the residential amenity and well-being of the neighbouring occupiers and it was unclear how much mitigation measures could achieve under those circumstances and given the unacceptably close proximity of the air-conditioning units to the neighbouring properties, contrary to policies CS1 Harrow Core Strategy (2012), Policy D14 London Plan (2021), and DM1 Harrow Development Plan (2013).

 

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Anjana Patel, put to the vote, and agreed.

 

The Committee resolved to refuse officer recommendations.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

The Planning Committee is asked to:

 

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

 

2)              grant planning permission subject to the conditions 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 Fitzpatrick and Henson abstained from voting on the motion to refuse the application.

 

Councillors Maru and Parekh voted against the motion to refuse the application.

 

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted for the motion to refuse the application.