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 Member:

RESOLVED:  That, in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 4.1, the following Councillor, who was not a Member of the Committee, be allowed to speak on the agenda item indicated:

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)          all Members of the Committee;

(b)          all other Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interest was declared:

Agenda Item 2/07 - 102 College Road -   (P/5297/19)

Councillor Keith Ferry declared a pecuniary interest in that he had an association with the applicant.  He left the meeting whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2020 be taken as read, and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2020 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive any public questions received in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

Questions will be asked in the order in which they were received.  There will be a time limit of 15 minutes for the asking and answering of public questions.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, Friday, 12 June 2020.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

RESOLVED:  To note that one public question had been received and responded to and the recording had been placed on the website.

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions were received at this meeting.

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received at this meeting.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were none.

RESOLVED:  To accept the Addendum.

To confirm whether representations are to be received, under Committee Procedure Rule 29 (Part 4B of the Constitution), from objectors and applicants regarding planning applications on the agenda.

RESOLVED:  That, in accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 30 (Part 4B of the Constitution), representations be received in respect of the following Agenda items on the list of planning applications: 2/01; 2/06; and 2/08.

PROPOSAL:  redevelopment to provide 23 houses; associated landscaping and parking; and refuse storage (as amended by the Addendum).

The Committee resolved to approve the officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION A

The Planning Committee was asked to:

1)            Agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report, and

2)            Grant planning permission subject to authority being delegated to the Interim Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and other enabling development and issue of the planning permission, subject to amendments to the conditions, including the insertion or deletion of conditions as deemed fit and appropriate to the development or the amendments to the legal agreement as required.

The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:

i.              Provision of offsite affordable housing contribution of £110,000 with a viability review mechanism;

ii.            Harrow Employment and Training Initiatives - financial contribution towards local training and employment initiatives prior to commencement;

iii.           Child Play Space provision contribution;                       

iv.           Parking permit restriction;

v.            Carbon offsetting contribution;

vi.           External materials strategy;

vii.          Planning Permission monitoring fee; and

viii.        Legal fees.

RECOMMENDATION B

That if the Section 106 Agreement was not completed by 28 October 2020 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by the Interim Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, the section 106 Planning Obligation was not completed, then delegate the decision to the Interim Chief Planning Officer to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

The proposed development, in the absence of a Legal Agreement to provide appropriate improvements, benefits and monitoring that directly related to the development, would fail to adequately mitigate the impact of the development on the wider area and provide for necessary social, environmental and physical infrastructural improvements arising directly from the development, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies 3.6, 3.12, 5.2, 6.3, 6.13 and 8.2 of the London Plan (2016), Policies H4, S4, SI2, T6, T6.1 and DF1 of the draft London Plan (2019) – intend to publish version, Policy CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policies DM12, DM28, DM42, DM50, of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).

DECISION:  GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous.

PROPOSAL:  redevelopment to provide a two storey dwelling with basement; parking; hard and soft landscaping; and bin store demolition of existing dwelling (as amended by the Addendum).

The Committee received representations from Mr Maxwell Nisner (Objector) and Councillor Stephen Greek.

The speakers outlined their reasons for seeking refusal of the application.

The Committee resolved to approve the officer recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was 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:  GRANT

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

Councillors Ferry, Ali, Brown and Maru voted in favour of granting the application.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel abstained from voting on the application.

PROPOSAL:  addition of one floor to each building to provide two by one bed flats with balconies (additional 6 flats in total); patio area to ground floor flats; external alterations; parking; landscaping; and refuse and cycle storage.

Following questions and comments from a Member, an officer advised that:

·                     Residents would have to apply for parking permits in order to park at the development.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1)            The proposed development, due to its inappropriate design, represents an incongruous addition to the host building and would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the original buildings and would fail to respect the character of the surrounding neighbouring properties and pattern of development in the surrounding area, contrary to policies 7.4B and 7.6B of the London Plan (2016) and policy D3 of the draft London Plan (2019), policy CS 1 B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Policies London Plan (2013) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010); and

2)            The proposal, by reason of its siting in close proximity to neighbouring houses, would result in an overbearing development, resulting in an unacceptable loss of outlook and visual amenity to the rear habitable rooms and rear gardens of the neighbouring occupiers, contrary to policy 7.6B of the London Plan (2016) and D2 of the draft London Plan (2019) policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies (2013) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (2010).

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

The Committee resolved to refuse the officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was asked to:

1)            Agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report subject to conditions.

DECISION:  REFUSE

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

Councillors Ferry, Brown and Maru voted for the application.

Councillors Ashton, Ali, Baxter and Patel voted against.

PROPOSAL: redevelopment to provide two storey building with habitable roof space to be used as house in multiple occupation (HMO) for up to 17 residents (sui generis) (as amended by the Addendum).

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1)            The proposed development by reason of the excessive number of occupiers that it would accommodate would represent an overly intensive use of the site and would provide a poor quality living arrangement for future occupiers and would cause excessive levels of disturbance to the detriment of the living conditions of future occupiers and the amenities of adjoining occupiers.  The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) policy 7.6B of the London Plan (2016) D1 and D6 of the draft London Plan (2019) policies DM1, DM30 and DM42 of the Harrow Development Management Policies London Plan (2013).

The motion was seconded, put to the vote, and lost.

The Committee resolved to approve the officer recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION A

The Planning Committee was asked to:

1)            Agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report, and

2)            Grant planning permission subject to authority being delegated to the Interim Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and other enabling legislation and issue of the planning permission and subject to minor amendments to the conditions (set out in Appendix 1 of the report) or the legal agreement. The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:

i.              Prior to occupation of the development notify all prospective owners, residents, occupiers or tenants of the units of the development that they would not be eligible for a Resident Parking Permit or Visitors Parking Permit to park a motor vehicle where a CPZ had been implemented unless they had a Disabled Person’s Badge.

ii.            Legal Fees: Payment of Harrow Council’s reasonable costs in the  preparation of the legal agreement.

iii.           Planning Administration Fee: Payment of £1,580 administration fee for the monitoring and compliance of the legal agreement.

RECOMMENDATION B

That if, by 31 July 2020 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by the Interim Chief Planning Officer, the section 106 Planning Obligation was not completed, then delegate the decision to the Interim Chief Planning Officer to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

The proposed development in the absence of a legal agreement for the restriction of resident parking permits would result in a detrimental impact on the capacity and safety of the Highway network, would fail to comply with the requirements of policies DM42 and DM50 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013, policy AAP 19 of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (2013) and the Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations (2013).

DECISION:  GRANT

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

Councillors Ferry, Ali, Brown and Maru voted for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 361.

PROPOSAL: redevelopment to provide four by two storey (1 bed) dwellings; bin and cycle stores; and landscaping.

The Committee resolved to approve the officer recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was 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:  GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous.

PROPOSAL: creation of fourth and fifth storey of residential accommodation (C3) comprising eight flats (8 x 1 bed); and refuse and cycle storage.

The Committee resolved to approve the officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION A

The Planning Committee was asked to:

1)            Agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report, and

2)            Grant planning permission subject to authority being delegated to the Interim Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the completion of the Deed of Variation related to Section 106 legal agreement subject of application P/1347/18/PRIOR and pursuant to sections 106 and 106A of the 1990 Act and was a supplement to the Principal Deed and should be read in conjunction with the Principal Deed The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:

              i.                Development to be Resident Permit Restricted - with the exception of disabled persons, no resident of the development should obtain a residents’ parking permit within the Controlled Parking Zone.  An additional £1,500 contribution towards the cost of amending the traffic order; and

            ii.                Legal Fees - Payment of Harrow Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the legal agreement.

RECOMMENDATION B

That if, by 10 July 2020 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by the Interim Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, the section 106 Planning Obligation was not completed, then delegate the decision to the Chief Planning Officer to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to provide appropriate provision for restriction of resident parking permits would fail to comply with the requirements of policies 6.3 and 6.13 of The London Plan 2016, T4 and T6.1 of the Draft London Plan (2019), policy CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), and Policies DM50 and DM42 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and would therefore be unacceptable.

DECISION:  GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous.

PROPOSAL:  outbuilding at rear (retrospective).

The Committee received representations from Mr Robert Daboul (Objector), who outlined his reasons for seeking refusal of the application.

Councillor Marilyn  Ashton proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1)            The outbuilding, by reason of its siting in relation to the neighbouring site boundaries and its excessive scale and height, gives rise to a visually bulky and unduly dominant structure, which is out of character with the pattern of development in the locality, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and visual amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in particular 14 Old Forge Close, contrary to the high quality design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), policies 7.4B and 7.6B of the London Plan (2016) and policy D2 of the draft London Plan (2019), Core Policy CS1 (B) of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document - Residential Design Guide (2010).

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

The Committee resolved to refuse the officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was 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.

The Committee resolved to refuse the officer recommendations.

DECISION:  REFUSE

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

Councillor Ferry voted for the application.

Councillors Ali, Brown, Maru, Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted against.

Councillor Ferry (Chair) left the meeting at 8:08 pm and Councillor Ali (Vice?Chair) assumed the chair.

PROPOSAL:  third floor rear extension and creation of fourth and fifth floors to create 19 additional house in multiple occupation (HMO) units (44 no. C3 and HMO units in total on site); and additional bin and cycle stores (as amended by the Addendum).

Following questions and comments from Members, the Interim Chief Planning Officer advised that:

·                     The development would not be co-living.  However, co-living accommodation was part of The London Plan 2016, T4 and T6.1 of the Draft London Plan (2019); and

·                     Delegation could be given to Officers to request the applicant to sub-divide the kitchen into two, through a condition for a revised layout.

The Committee resolved to approve the officer recommendations, and to delegate authority to the Interim Chief Planning Officer to seek a revised layout of the kitchen plan by condition.

RECOMMENDATION A

The Planning Committee was asked to:

1)            Agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report, and

2)            Grant planning permission subject to authority being delegated to the Interim Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and other enabling legislation and issue of the planning permission and subject to minor amendments to the conditions (set out in Appendix 1 of the report) or the legal agreement.  The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:

i.              Development to be Resident Permit Restricted - with the exception of disabled persons, no resident of the development should obtain a residents’ parking permit within the Controlled Parking Zone.  An additional £1,500 contribution towards the cost of amending the traffic order; and

ii.            Legal Fees - Payment of Harrow Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the legal agreement.

RECOMMENDATION B

That if, by 30 November 2020 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by the Interim Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, the section 106 Planning Obligation was not completed, then delegate the decision to the Interim Chief Planning Officer to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds that:

The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to provide appropriate provision for restriction of resident parking permits would fail to comply with the requirements of policies 6.3 and 6.13 of The London Plan 2016, T4 and T6.1 of the Draft London Plan (2019), policy CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), AAP19 of the Harrow & Wealdstone Area Action Plan (2013) and Policies DM50 and DM42 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and would therefore be unacceptable.

DECISION:  GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application, with condition, was unanimous.

PROPOSAL: first floor side extension.

The Committee received representations from Mr Adrian Jolliffe (Objector), and  Mr Mahmood Awan (Applicant). Both speakers outlined their reasons for seeking refusal and approval of the application, respectively.

Following questions and comments from Members, an officer advised that:

·                     The proposal complied with policy guidelines, and was considered acceptable.

The Committee resolved to approve officer recommendations.         

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was 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:  GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous.

The video recording of this meeting can be found at the following link:

https://www2.harrow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1001&MId=64899