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:

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

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 items 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 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 18 November 2020 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 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, 4 December 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 (with a supplemental question) was received and responded to, and the recording had been placed on the website.

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

https://www.harrow.gov.uk/virtualmeeting )

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that there were none.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 16 (Part 4B) of the Constitution.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no deputations notified.

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

RESOLVED:  To note that two petitions (published in the Supplemental Agenda on 2 December 2020) were received from the Council Meeting held on 26 November 2020.  These pertained to:

1)            Canons Park Station Car Park Development; and

2)            Stanmore Station Car Park Development.

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 29 (Part 4B of the Constitution), representations be received in respect of items 1/01, 2/01, 2/03, and 3/01 on the list of planning applications.

[Note:  Planning applications 1/01 and 2/01 were subsequently deferred, and so the representations were not received].

PROPOSAL:  redevelopment of existing car park to provide new residential accommodation (Use Class C3) and Sui Generis unit at ground floor and public car park along with associated works.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed that the item be deferred to allow for a site visit to see the views from the Grade II park and fully understand the impact of the development. The motion was seconded, put to the vote, and agreed.

DECISION:  DEFER

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

Councillors Ali, Ashton, Baxter, Brown, Maru and Patel voted for the application to be deferred.

Councillor Ferry voted against deferral.

PROPOSAL:  redevelopment to provide a six storey building comprising of office floor space on the first floor (use class E) and 9 flats (2 x 3 bed, 5 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed) on second, third, fourth and fifth floors; parking; bin and cycle stores.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed that the item be deferred to allow for a site visit to understand the proximity of the surrounding buildings and the access arrangement in respect of the development.  The motion was seconded, put to the vote, and agreed.

DECISION:  DEFER

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

PROPOSAL:  redevelopment to provide one pair of two storey semi-detached dwellings with habitable roof spaces (2 x 5 bed); landscaping; parking; refuse and cycle storage.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal for the following reasons:

1)            the development would be detrimental to the character of the area by reason of its siting and scale, contrary to CS1 Core Strategy (2012), 7.4 London Plan (2016), DM1 Harrow Management Policy, D1 Draft London Plan (2019) and to the Harrow Residential design Guide SPD in relation to Garden Development (2013).

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

Councillors Ali, Brown, Ferry and Maru voted against the proposal.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted for the proposal.

The Committee resolved to accept 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 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 Ali, Brown, Ferry and Maru voted for the application.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel against the application.

PROPOSAL:  conversion of dwelling (use class C3) to House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) for up to 8 people (Use class sui generis).

The Committee received representations from Robert Bruce (objector) and Sammy Chan (agent for the applicant).  Both objector and agent outlined their reasons for seeking refusal, and approval, of the application, respectively.

The Committee also received representation from Councillor Richard Almond (Ward Councillor) who spoke against granting the application.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal for the following reasons:

1)            the development, by reason of the excessive number of occupiers, represents an overly intensive use of the site to the detriment of future occupiers and residential amenity within the locality, contrary to CS1 Harrow Core Strategy (2012), DM1, DM30 Development Management Policy, London Plan Policy 3.5 (2016), Draft London Plan Policy D1 (2019).

The proposal was seconded, put to the vote and agreed.  The decision to refuse the application was unanimous.

The Committee resolved to refuse officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

Had this application been not appealed for non-determination, the Local Planning Authority would have recommended that this application be granted.

The Committee was also asked to:

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

DECISION:  REFUSE

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

PROPOSAL:  re-development to provide two storey dwelling (demolition of existing dwelling).

The Committee resolved to accept 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 by a majority of votes.

Councillors Ali, Brown, Ferry and Maru voted for the application.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel abstained from voting.

PROPOSAL:  conversion of dwelling house into four flats (1 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed and 1 X 3 bed); single storey front extension; single storey side extension; single and two storey rear extension; alterations to roof to raise ridge height; rear dormer; external alterations.

The Committee resolved to accept 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 set out 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 access only - redevelopment to provide four storey building with basement comprising of sporting higher education facility, student accommodation, hotel, medical diagnostic centre; plant and associated works.

The Committee received representation from Sean McGrath (agent for the applicant) who urged the Committee to reject officer recommendations, and grant the application.

The Committee also received representation from Councillor Amir Moshenson, who urged the Committee to accept officer recommendations,  and refuse the application.

Following questions and comments from a Member on the extent of open space that would be utilised by the community, it was advised that it was yet to be determined.

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

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

1)            the proposed uses comprising of a hotel, sporting higher education facility including student accommodation and medical diagnostics centre would give rise to inappropriate uses on the site which would be in direct conflict with the site’s allocation for community outdoor sport development and by reason of the site’s low accessibility, siting outside of a Town Centre or Opportunity Area and insufficient evidence to demonstrate the need for the uses proposed, would give rise to an unsustainable development in a strategically poor and inappropriate location, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies 3.16, 3.19 and 4.5 of The London Plan (2016), policies S5, E10G, SD7, S1 and S3B of The Draft London Plan - Intend to Publish (2019), core policies CS1 Z, F and L of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policies DM 34, DM 46 and DM 48B of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and Site MOS5 of the Harrow Site Allocations (2013);

2)            the proposed development would result in a direct loss of protected designated open space and would not provide a use which is ancillary or appropriate to the existing open space, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policy 7.18 of The London Plan (2016), policy G4 of The Draft London Plan - Intend to Publish (2019), core policy CS1 F of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policy DM18 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013);

3)            the proposed development, in the absence of a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan, fails to demonstrate the impacts of the development on the surrounding highway network, and to propose measures to promote sustainable travel modes and to reduce the effects of travel by car. Insufficient information has therefore been provided to demonstrate that the proposals would not 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, T6.4 of the Draft London Plan – Intend to Publish (2019), policy 1 of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, policy CS1 R of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 475.

PROPOSAL:  installation of 1.9m high front entrance gates and brick piers (retrospective).

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was asked to:

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

DECISION:  REFUSE

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

Vote of Thanks

Members and Officers expressed their profound appreciation to Councillor Keith Ferry for his services as Chair of the Planning Committee over the years.  This would be his last meeting.  They wished him well in his future endeavours.

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

https://www.harrow.gov.uk/virtualmeeting.