Agenda and minutes

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 Councillors, who were not Members of the Committee, be allowed to speak on the agenda item indicated:

RESOLVED:  To note that the Declarations of Interests published in advance of the meeting on the Council’s website were taken as read.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2020 be taken as read, and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 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, 17 July 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, and Supplemental 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 Agenda items 1/02, 2/01, 2/02, 2/04, 2/06, 2/09, and 2/10 on the list of planning applications.

[Note:  Planning application 2/04 was subsequently withdrawn, and representations were not received.]

PROPOSAL:  variation of condition 21 (revised car parking provision) attached to planning permission P/4748/18 dated 2/8/19 to allow the 3G artificial grass pitch to be used from the beginning of September 2020 (as amended by the Supplemental Addendum).

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:  outline application for all matters reserved - construction of five storey car park (as amended by the Addendum and Supplemental Addendum).

The Committee received representations from Mr Sean McGrath (for the Applicant) who outlined his reasons for seeking refusal of the officer recommendation, and subsequently requesting that the application be granted.

The Committee resolved to accept the officer recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was asked to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1)            The proposed development, by reason of a failure to propose measures to promote sustainable travel modes and to reduce the effects of travel by car and insufficient information to support the numbers of car parking spaces proposed, would result in unacceptable harm to the surrounding highway network through increased pressure on local parking amenity and on local transport infrastructure from excessive vehicle trips, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies 6.3, 6.10 and 6.13 of The London Plan (2016), policies T1, T2, T4, and T6 of the Draft London Plan (2019), policy 1 of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, policy CS1 R of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and policies DM 42 and DM 43 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013);

2)            The proposed development, in the absence of an up to date Preliminary Ecological Assessment and the close proximity to the adjoining Borough Grade II Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, fails to demonstrate that biodiversity value of the surrounding area would not be harmed, protected or enhanced, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policy 7.19 of The London Plan (2019), policy G6 of the Draft London Plan (2019) policy CS 1 E of the Harrow Core Strategy and policies DM 48 A b, DM 20 and DM 21 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013);

3)            The proposal, by reason of an unsatisfactory Flood Risk Assessment, fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would result in a net reduction in flood risk, be resistant and resilient to flooding, would not exacerbate the risk of flooding within the site or increase the risk and consequences of flooding elsewhere or provide a dry means of escape for the future users, to the detriment of the safety of the adjoining occupiers and the future users of the development, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies 5.12 and 5.13 of The London Plan (2016), policies SI12 and SI 13 of the Draft London Plan (2019), Core Policy CS1 U of Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and policies DM 9 and DM 10 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013);

4)            The proposed development, by reason of its failure to demonstrate the impacts of the development on the adjacent Artificial Grass Pitches and the continued or enhanced community access to the site, would prejudice the ongoing use of the facilities needed for the proper functioning of the principal outdoor sports uses and would not promote enhanced community access to the site, contrary to the National Planning Policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 378.

PROPOSAL:  single storey outbuilding at rear to be used as sensory room ancillary to day care centre (Use class D1/C2).

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 received representations from Ms Elsa Morrison (Objector), and Mr Yussuf Mwanza (for the 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 notices were sent later than usual due to the illness of a staff member, who usually sent them out; and

·                     A total of nine objections had been received, and had been placed in the public domain, with no prejudicial impact on objectors.

The Legal Officer further advised that the legal requirement was for a site notice, which had been sent. Therefore, there was compliance with the regulations.

The Committee resolved to approve 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 a majority of votes.

Councillors Ferry, Shah, Ramchandani, Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted for the application.

Councillor Ali abstained from voting on the application.

PROPOSAL:  two storey front extension; single storey rear extension; alterations to form pitched roof over single storey side extension; alterations and extension to roof over existing first floor side extension; first floor side infill extension; first floor rear infill extension; front dormer; two rear dormers; roof lights in both side roof slopes; Juliette balcony at first floor rear; conversion of garage to habitable room with installation of window to front; external alterations (as amended by the Supplemental Addendum).

The Committee received representations from Mr Shazia Akhtar (Objector) and Councillor Norman Stevenson.  Both speakers outlined their reasons for seeking refusal of the application.

Councillor Marilyn  Ashton proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1)            The extensions would be out of keeping, are poorly designed and are visually obtrusive and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance and the setting of the Tookes Green Conservation Area, which this site abuts, contrary to CS1B of the Core Strategy and 7.4B, 7.6B 7.8B and 7.8D of the London Plan (2016), D1 and D4 of the Draft London Plan (2019) and DM1, DM7 of the Harrow Development Management Policies (2013).

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

The Committee resolved to refuse 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:  REFUSE

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

Councillors Ferry, Shah and Ramchandani  voted for the application.

Councillors Ali, Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted against.

PROPOSAL:  re-development to provide a two storey dwelling house (1 X 7 beds) with basement and habitable roof space; parking; boundary treatment; landscaping; bin/cycle store (as amended by the Addendum).

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, and delegate authority to the Interim Chief Planning Officer to add a Condition on window glazing.

DECISION:  GRANT

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

PROPOSAL:  variation of Condition 1 (Removal of Temporary Office Buildings) Attached to Planning Permission P/3060/17, dated 28/09/2017, to allow an 18 Month Extension for the Temporary Office Buildings (withdrawn in the Supplemental Addendum).

WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA

Following legal advice this application was withdrawn to allow for the submission of a new planning application as the temporary permission expired on 27 March 2020.

PROPOSAL:  single storey infill extension.

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:  external alterations to the former Austin building including six new double glazed doors and Installation of louvres; provision of access ramp and steps; construction of a free-standing canopy to southern elevation; new boundary treatment and gates; Multiple Use Games Area (MUGA); substation; parking and cycle storage; reconfiguration of drop off and access; hard and soft landscaping; external alterations and lighting (to provide a new 2FE primary school for 420 pupils) (as amended by the Addendum).

The Committee received representations from Majella Baade (Objector), and  Mr David Poole (for the Applicant). Both speakers outlined their reasons for seeking refusal and approval of the application, respectively.

The Committee also received representation from Councillor Stephen Greek.

The Committee resolved to approve the officer recommendation, and to delegate authority to the Interim Chief Planning Officer to seek a revised travel plan by condition.

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 conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the report.

DECISION:  GRANT

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

PROPOSAL:  construction of four storey building with green roof to create six flats (1 X studio, 3 X 1 bed and 2 X 2 bed) (Use Class C3); office at ground floor (Use Class B1); new vehicle access from Palmerston Road; refuse and cycle storage; one blue-badge parking bay (as amended by the Supplemental Addendum).

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1)            the development, by reason of its close proximity and orientation to Birchfield House, and given its height and scale, would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of Birchfield House and would cause a noticeable and unacceptable reduction in daylight into the habitable rooms thereof, contrary to the Harrow Care Strategy CS1 (2012), London Plan (2016) 3.5, 7.2, 7.6 draft London Plan (2019) D1, D4, D5, D7, Harrow Development Management Policies DM1, DM2, DM27, DM28 and the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (2013) AAP4.

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 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:

a.    Parking permit restriction; and

b.    Monitoring and Legal Fees.

RECOMMENDATION B

That if the Section 106 Agreement was not completed by 22 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:

1)            The proposed development, in the absence of a Legal Agreement to provide parking permit restrictions would fail to ensure that the development in this location prioritises access by sustainable modes and does not place additional transport stress on the public highway, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies 6.3 and 8.2 of the London Plan (2016), Policies T6, T6.1 and DF1 of the draft London Plan (2019) – intend to publish version, Policy CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), Policies DM42 and DM50 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and Policy AAP19 of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (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, Shah and Ramchandani voted for the application.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted against.

PROPOSAL:  outline Planning permission for access only: detached two storey dwelling house at land to side no.42 (demolition of conservatory at no.42).

Councillor Marilyn Ashton requested to:  “place a watching brief on the reserve matters, since the application was in outline only.  Therefore, there were no details of the dwelling that would be built on the plot.”

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, Shah and Ramchandani voted in favour of granting the application.

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

PROPOSAL:  details pursuant to conditions 3 (tree protection), 4 (details of pruning), 7 (ecology mitigation and monitoring), 8 (noise report), 9 (surface water disposal), 10 (foul sewage disposal), 11 (construction method statement), 12 scheme of landscaping) and 15 (external materials) attached to planning permission P/0672/18 dated 23/09/2019 for creation of an 18 Hole Golf adventure experience facility including theme props and ancillary kiosk; Refuse Storage in car park area (as amended by the Supplemental Addendum).

The Committee received representations from Mr Brian Stoker (Objector) and Mr Pierre Dowsett (for the Applicant). Mr Dowsett’s statement was read by the Chair.

Both the Objector and Applicant outlined their reasons for seeking refusal and approval of the application, respectively.

The Committee also received representation from Councillor Stephen Greek, who outlined reasons for seeking refusal of the application. 

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1)            The proposed materials used for the construction of the model dinosaurs was out of keeping in a Green Belt setting and Area of Special Character and would be visually obtrusive in the street scene to the detriment of the long views both from the road and when viewed from the Green Belt itself and would therefore result in a loss of amenity within the locality, contrary to Harrow Core Strategy CS1B and CS1F (2012), National Planning Policy Framework (2029), Policy 7.16B of the London Plan (2016), Policy G2 of the Draft London Plan (2019), and Policy DM1 and DM16 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013); and

2)            To add to Condition 12 that the mature planting abutting the highway include mature evergreen trees and not the deciduous variety only, in order to screen off the dinosaurs in the winter months.  Furthermore,  reference be made to the “Contractor Code of Practice”, thereby compelling the Council to keep a close eye on the hours of construction works in order to minimise the disturbance the construction site had caused to the people living nearby.

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

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)            approve the details.

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, Shah and Ramchandani voted for the application.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted against.

PROPOSAL:  two storey side to rear extension; detached double car port; installation of 1.6m to 2m high brick pier boundary wall, installation of wrought iron pedestrian and vehicle access gates to front; relocation of pedestrian and vehicle access; external alterations (demolition of detached double garage; plant room; changing rooms, swimming pool and tennis courts) (as amended by the Addendum).

The Committee received representations from Mr Roger Birtles (for the Applicant) who outlined his reasons for seeking refusal of the officer recommendations, and subsequently requesting that the application be granted.

A Member proposed to grant the application.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Marilyn Ashton, and agreed.

The Committee resolved to refuse the officer recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was asked to:

1)            agree the reasons for refusal as set out in the report.

DECISION:  GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that their decision to be  “minded  to grant” the application, which would be brought back to Committee, was unanimous.

The audio recording of this meeting can be found at the following link: www.harrow.gov.uk/virtualmeeting.