Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:-

To agree requests to speak from Councillors who are not Members of the Committee, in accordance with Committee Procedure 4.1.

It was moved and seconded that one Ward Councillor, who was not a Member of the Committee and had indicated that he wished to speak, be allowed to speak for a maximum of five minutes.  This was put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:  That Councillor Narinder Singh Mudhar, Ward Councillor, be allowed to speak for a maximum of five minutes on Planning Application 1/01 (51 College Road, Harrow).

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Item 1/04 Eruv

Councillor Marilyn Ashton – prejudicial interest as a Member of Stanmore Synagogue.  Accordingly, she would leave the room and take no part in the decision making process.

(Councillor Mrs Nickolay took the Chair for the consideration of this application.)

Item 2/07 – 4 Aylwards Rise, Stanmore

Councillor Marilyn Ashton – prejudicial interest as she had taken a personal interest as the Portfolio Holder.  Accordingly, she would leave the room and take no part in the decision making process.

(Councillor Mrs Nickolay took the Chair for the consideration of this application.)

Item 2/03 – Pinner Park Middle School

Councillor Keith Ferry – personal interest as he lived and owned property nearby. He remained in the room during discussion on the item

Item 2/02 – Sacred Heart

Councillor Keith Ferry – prejudicial interest as his daughter attended the college.  Accordingly, he would leave the room and take no part in the decision making process.

Item 1/01 – 51 College Road, Harrow

Councillor Eileen Kinnear – personal interest as she lived and owned property in the town centre.  She remained in the room during discussion on the item

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 30 April 2009 and the Planning Committee held on 13 May 2009 be taken as read and signed as correct records.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings of the Development Management Committee held on 30 April 2009 and the Planning Committee held on 13 May 2009 be taken as read and signed as correct records.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 19 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors.

RESOLVED:  To note the receipt of the following petition of 3,525 signatures objecting to Planning Application 1/01 – 51 College Road, Harrow.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B) of the Constitution.

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received.

To receive references from Council and any other Committees or Panels (if any).

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no references from Council or other Committees or Panels.

To confirm whether representations are to be received, under Committee Procedure Rule 18 (Part 4B of the Constitution), from objectors and applicants regarding planning applications on the agenda.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)           in accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 18 (Part 4B of the Constitution), representations be received in respect of items 1/01, 2/09 and 2/21 on the list of planning applications.

(2)           In accordance with Rule 27.1 the Committee agreed to suspend Rule 18 to allow all agreed speakers five minutes to express their case in respect of application 1/01 (51 College Road, Harrow).

Report of the Head of Planning - circulated separately.

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Planning Protocol, where Councillors disagree with the advice of the Chief Planning Officer, it will be the Members' responsibility to clearly set out the reasons for refusal where the Officer recommendation is for grant.  The planning reasons for rejecting the Officer's advice must be clearly stated, whatever the recommendation and recorded in the minutes.  The Officer must be given the opportunity to explain the implications of the contrary decision.

In accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the Addendum was admitted late to the agenda as it contained information relating to various items on the agenda and was based on information received after the despatch of the agenda.  It was admitted to the agenda in order to enable Members to consider all information relevant to the items before them for decision.

The Head of Planning submitted reports in relation to the following applications for determination.

RESOLVED:  That authority be given to the Head of Planning to issue the decision notices in respect of the applications considered.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(1)                 51 COLLEGE ROAD, HARROW (APPLICATION 1/01)

Reference: P/1620/08/SK – (Dandara Limited). Revised Application For Redevelopment To Provide 410 Flats In 3 Blocks Ranging Between 3 and 19 Storeys In Height; 87 Car Parking Spaces In Basement, 3 Parking Spaces At Ground Floor Level; 442 Cycle Spaces, 7 Motorcycle Spaces; 1120 Square Metres of A1, A2, A3, A4 and B1 Floor Space At Ground Floor Level; Creation Of Public Square And Pedestrian Footbridge.

Following the withdrawal of one objector in respect of their speaking rights the Committee received representations from two objectors, Navin Shah (London Assembly Member) and Abe Hayeem; one supporter, Reverend Bob Gardiner, and the Applicant’s representative, Andrew Wagstaff, which were noted.

The officer advised the Committee that full consideration of this strategic development required that they consider:

·                     the policy context and consideration of the principle of the development;

·                     consideration of the context – sensitivities and key physical considerations and potential impacts;

·                     suitability of the development proposed by the applicants (including consideration of comments received through consultations/ notifications /petitions); and

·                     the response and impacts of the development in the context of the above and consideration of any mitigation proposed having regard to all information submitted.

Insofar as securing a full understanding of the context for the development, a substantial site visit had been held encompassing a range of locations detailed on the addendum report.  

The officer spoke on options for approval and refusal advising that both arguments were before Members for consideration.  In response to questions raised the officer responded as follows:

·                     the affordable housing element fell short of development plan aspirations however, the additional policy benefits in relation to a bridge and enhancement of the transport infrastructure were viewed by the GLA and officers as representing an appropriate balance;

·                     should there be an insistence to achieve a threshold of 30% affordable housing this would impact on the viability of the project and if implemented could result in other key elements of the proposals not being deliverable;

·                     the new bridge would be funded by S106 funding but, the finer details in relation to design and form would be subject to the approval of Transport for London, who would be keen to ensure all rail safety requirements were adhered to.  Delivery of the bridge project would be the responsibility of the borough council, together with ongoing maintenance;

·                     the assessment of daylight on new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Report of the Head of Planning – for information.

The Committee received a report from the Head of Planning which listed those appeals being dealt with and those awaiting decision.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Head of Planning – For Information.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Report of the Divisional Director of Planning Services.

The Committee received a report of the Divisional Director of Planning Services which sought a stop up of a footpath linking Greenhill Way and Greenhill Road, to enable a development to be carried out in accordance with Planning Permission granted.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)                 the Director of Legal and Governance Services be authorised to take the necessary steps to commence the process of stopping up of the areas of highway shown on the plan to the report at Appendix 1, as required under Section 247 and 252 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

(2)                 any objections made to the proposed order to stop up the highways, which were not withdrawn within the prescribed period, be referred to the Mayor of London for determination as to whether or not a public inquiry should be held in accordance with Section 252 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

(3)                 officers be authorised to proceed with the making of the order without further reference to the Committee if there are no objections to the proposed order or if the Mayor of London decides that a public inquiry is unnecessary.

Report of the Divisional Director of Planning Services.

The Committee received a report of the Divisional Director of Planning Services which sought a stop up a section of Goldsmith Close, to enable a development to be carried out in accordance with Planning Permission granted.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)                 the Director of Legal and Governance Services be authorised to take the necessary steps to commence the process of stopping up of the areas of highway shown on the plan to the report at Appendix 1, as required under Section 247 and 252 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

(2)                 any objections made to the proposed order to stop up the highways, which were not withdrawn within the prescribed period, be referred to the Mayor of London for determination as to whether or not a public inquiry should be held in accordance with Section 252 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

(3)                 officers be authorised to proceed with the making of the order without further reference to the Committee if there are no objections to the proposed order or if the Mayor of London decides that a public inquiry is unnecessary.

Report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services.

The Committee received a report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services which sought an extension of time to complete a Section 106 agreement relating to Gayton Road, Harrow and approval of a change to the provision of affordable housing.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)                 the time for completion of the Agreement be extended by two calendar months from the date of this meeting;

(2)                 a change in the provision of affordable housing to enable a cascade mechanism to be used to vary the mix of affordable housing type be agreed.

To arrange dates for Member site visits that have been agreed during the course of the meeting (if any).

RESOLVED:  That Member Site Visits take place on Friday 17 July at 6.00 pm to the following sites:

·                     72 Lakeview

·                     10 Oxford Road

In accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4B of the Constitution) at 9.59 pm a proposal to extend the length of the meeting to enable all business to be heard was moved.  During the moving of the proposal Councillor Ferry expressed his concern with regard to the timing of the resolution.

RESOLVED:  That at 9.59 pm a proposal was moved and agreed prior to 10.01 pm that the Committee continue till the end of business on the agenda.