PROPOSAL: discharge of section 106 obligations attached to planning permission WEST/695/94/FUL dated 23 June 1995 (The Principal Agreement) as varied by deed of variation dated 24 September 2007 (First Amendment), application P/3420/06 dated 16 October 2007 (Second Amendment) and P/2160/10 dated 11 February 2011 (Third Amendment). The application proposes to fully discharge the obligations within the Section 106 which restricts future development to within a building envelope, pupils enrolled for the full time education to 525 (subsequently increased to 600 by variation to the original agreement), and not to permit use of any part of the development outside the normal school hours other than recreational use without prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.
The Committee received representation from Councillor Dan Anderson (back bench) who urged the Committee to refuse the application.
The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations.
The Planning Committee was asked to:
(1) agree the reasons for refusal as set out in the report - had the applicant not appealed the application would have been refused for the following reason: In the absence of an approved alternative mechanism to protect the Conservation Area by controlling development and to control pupil numbers there is no justification for the discharge of the Section 106 agreement (as amended) attached to planning permission WEST/695/94/FUL dated 23 June 1995 (The Principal Agreement) as varied by deed of variation dated 24 September 2007 (First Amendment), application P/3420/06 dated 16 October 2007 (Second Amendment) and P/2160/10 dated 11 February 2011 (Third Amendment). The section 106 continues to serves the purpose of restricting the building envelope, hours of use and pupil numbers which is considered necessary to protect the character of the Conservation Area and the residential amenities of neighbouring residents with regard to noise, disturbance and traffic movements. In the absence of any alternative mechanism the removal of these obligations would have the potential to give rise to circumstances prejudicial to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the residential amenities of nearby residents and highway safety, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), policies D14, HC1 and T4 of The London Plan (2021) and policies DM1 and DM42 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). The proposed discharge of Section 106 obligations associated with Planning Permission Ref: WEST/695/04/FUL and subsequent variations is therefore considered to be unacceptable under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Section 106A).
The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to refuse the application was unanimous.