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 9 December 2020 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 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, 15 January 2021.  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 questioner was not satisfied with the response to the supplemental question. 

The Vice-Chair (In the Chair) advised that a more appropriate response would be provided in writing.

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

http://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 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 29 (Part 4B of the Constitution), representations be received in respect of items 1/01, 2/01 and 2/02.

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 (as amended by the Addendum and Supplemental Addendum).

The Committee received representations from Shirley Sackwild (objector),  Mike Turner (objector), Steve Skuse (agent for the applicant), and David Wakeford (applicant). The objectors, agent for the applicant, and the applicant outlined their reasons for seeking refusal, and approval, of the application, respectively.

The Committee also received representation from Ward Councillors Ameet Jogia, Amir Moshenson, and James Lee who all spoke against granting the application.

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

Councillors Ali, Brown, Ferry and Robson voted against deferral.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted for deferral.

A member proposed having virtual site visits instead of physical visits for the duration of when restrictions on physical gatherings would be in force due to the coronavirus (Covid-19) epidemic. The proposal was seconded, put to the vote and agreed.

Councillors Ali, Brown, Ferry and Robson voted for virtual site visits.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted against virtual site visits.

Members raised concerns on how new changes to the London Plan Policy D9 would affect the application. Officers were requested to provide an explanation of the changes and explain their consequences.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal for the following reasons:

1.            the development, by reason of height, mass and scale would be out of character, would be visually obtrusive and would give rise to a loss of residential amenity within the locality, contrary to policies CS1 and CS8 of the Core Strategy (2012), DM1 Harrow Development Management Policy, D1, D2, D9 the publication London Plan (2020), 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 London Plan (2016) and H17 of Harrow's Site Allocation (2013); and

2.            the proposal would be detrimental to the setting of the Canons Park Grade ll Listed Historic Park and Garden, designated MOL and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance and views from the Canons Park Estate Conservation Area, contrary to policies CS1, CS1D Core Strategy (2012), 7.8, 7.17 London Plan (2016), HC1, HC3 the publication London Plan (2020), Stanmore and Edgware Conservation Area Supplementary Planning Document (2013).

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

Councillors Ashton, Baxter, Brown and Patel voted to refuse officer recommendations

Councillor Ferry voted to approve officer recommendations.

Councillors Ali and Robson abstained from voting.

The Committee resolved to refuse 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 488.

PROPOSAL: redevelopment of the site to provide new residential accommodation (Use Class C3) along with associated works (as amended by the Addendum and Supplemental Addendum).

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

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted for deferral.

Councillors Ali, Brown, Ferry and Robson voted against deferral.

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION A

The Planning Committee was asked to:

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

2)            refer this application to the Mayor of London (the GLA) as a Stage 2 referral; and

3)            subject to the Mayor of London (or delegated authorised officer) advising that he is content to allow the Council to determine the case itself and does not wish to direct refusal, or to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application, delegate authority 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:

1.            Affordable Housing

·                  Provision of 39 affordable homes:  13 shared ownership (inclusive of discount market sales units) and 26 affordable rent

·                  10% of affordable rent accommodation to be constructed and ready for occupation as wheelchair standard homes

·                  Early stage review

·                  Late stage review

2.            Carbon Offset

·                  Payment of a total financial contribution of £237,559 towards carbon offset.  Payable upon commencement of each phase on a pro rata basis.

·                  Provision of certification of actual/ as-built carbon emission achieved on site and payment of any shortfall in carbon reductions calculated at a rate of £60 per tonne of carbon to be offset per year, over a 30 year period.

·                  Provision of commitment the development will be designed to enable post construction monitoring and that the information set out in the ‘be seen guidance is submitted to the GLA’s portal at the appropriate reporting stages.

3.            Energy Centre

·                  Provision of a safeguarding route to a connection to any future wider District Heat Network.

4.            Highways and Parking

·                  A revised Residential Travel Plan to be submitted to the Council prior to the first occupation of the building.  A travel plan bond (to be agreed with the Council) will be required to secure the implementation of all measures specified in the revised Travel Plan.  The developer to ensure the effective implementation, monitoring and management of the travel plan for the site. Appointment of Travel Plan Coordinator. Travel Plan monitoring fee of £5,000.

·                  A contribution for further parking surveys (£10,000) to be carried out prior to occupation and post occupation of the 100th flat  ...  view the full minutes text for item 489.

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 (as amended by the Supplemental Addendum).

The Committee received representations from Theo Demolder (objector) and Lotte Hirst (agent for the applicant).  Both objector and agent outlined their reasons for seeking refusal, and approval, of the application, respectively.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1.            the proposed development, by reason of its location and the unsuitable shared surface pedestrian access to the site, would fail to provide a high standard of design and layout and would not create a safe, secure, and appropriately accessible environment to the detriment of the living conditions of the future occupiers of the proposed residential units, contrary to the design aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policy 3.5 of the London Plan (2016), CS1 of Harrow Core Strategy (2012), D7 of the publication London Plan (2020).

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

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

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted for the proposal.

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 by a majority of votes.

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

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel against the application.

PROPOSAL:  Development To Provide A Pair Of Two Storey Semi-Detached Dwellings (2 X 3 Beds); Access; Parking; Landscaping And Bin Store (Demolition Of Bankfield Cottages) (as amended by the Supplemental Addemdum).

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

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal for the following reasons:

1.            the proposal, by reason of its close proximity to a golf course, would place in harm's way the future occupiers and visitors to the site and cause a distraction to golfers and there has been no information offered by the applicant to demonstrate that measures are in place to mitigate the potential safety concerns, contrary to CS1 of Core Strategy (2012) and D13 of publication London Plan.

The proposal was seconded, put to the vote and agreed. The decision to refuse the application was by a majority of votes.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter, Brown, Robson and Patel voted to refuse officer recommendations.

Councillor Ferry voted to approve officer recommendations.

Councillor Ali abstained from voting.

The Committee resolved to refuse officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION A

The Planning Committee was asked to:

1.            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 this report) or the legal agreement.  The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:

Heads of Terms for the Legal Agreement

·                     To only implement either planning permission P/3026/05/CFU or planning permission P/3983/20.

·                     To notify the Council the date of the construction of the development authorised by either planning permission P/3026/05/CFU or planning permission P/3983/20 together with a statement confirming which of the two planning permissions is being implemented.

·                     In the event that planning permission P/3026/05/CFU is implemented not to implement or cause permit or allow the implementation of any part of planning permission P/3983/20.

·                     Legal fees and administration/monitoring: Payment of Harrow Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the Legal agreement and administration costs/monitoring costs in accordance with the adopted fees and charges schedule.

RECOMMENDATION B

That if, by 20 April 2021 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by the Interim Chief Planning Officer, the section 106 Planning Obligation is 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, would enable both planning permission P/3026/05/CFU and P/3983/20 to be implemented on site which would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, to the detriment of the character and appearance and openness of the Green Belt, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policy 7.16B of The London Plan (2016), policy G2 of the Publication London Plan (2020), Core policy CS1 F of the Harrow Core Strategy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 491.

PROPOSAL: variation of condition 2 attached to planning permission P/5102/17 dated 15/01/2018 (as varied by P/2885/19 dated 24.12.2019 ) to allow relocation of substation, refuse area and one parking space.

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was asked to:

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

PROPOSAL:  conversion of dwelling (Use Class C3) into children’s care home (Use Class C2); conversion of garage into habitable room; external alterations (as amended by the Supplemental Addendum).

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations, subject to a management plan being brought back for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was asked to:

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

2)            grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of this report.

DECISION:  GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application, subject to a management plan being brought back for approval, was by a majority of votes.

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

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel abstained from voting.

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

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