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 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 Declarations of Interests published in advance of the meeting on the Council’s website were taken as read, and that the following interest was also declared:

Agenda Item 2/05 Pinner Hill Golf Course (P/0733/21)

Councillor Norman Stevenson, who was not a Member of the Committee, declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he had previously attended the proposed development on social occasions.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 April 2021 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 April 2021 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, 28 April 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 was received and would be responded to in writing, as the questioner was not in attendance when the item was considered.

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 no petitions were received.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 16 (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 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 29 (Part 4B of the Constitution), representations be received in respect of Agenda Items 2/01 and 2/05 on the list of planning applications.

PROPOSAL:  conversion of dwelling into three flats (1 x 3 bed and 1 x 1 bed and 1 x studio); single storey side extension; bin and cycle stores.

The Committee received representation from Councillors Chetna Halai and Nitesh Hirani, who both urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed that the application be deferred to allow for public participation.  The motion was seconded, put to the vote, and agreed.

The Interim Chief Planning Officer advised that letters to objectors had, inadvertently, not been sent by Planning Services.  Consequently, members of the public had not been able to participate as objectors.  Therefore, to allow for public participation, the application could be deferred.

DECISION:  DEFER

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

PROPOSAL:  single storey side to rear extension, conversion of garage into habitable room including new pitched roof, front porch and external alterations.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed that the application be deferred to allow for public participation, after a member of the public had contacted her when he could not register to speak as an objector.  He was not aware that the meeting was taking place.

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

The Interim Chief Planning Officer advised that letters to objectors had, inadvertently, not been sent by Planning Services.  Consequently, members of the public had not been able to participate as objectors.  Therefore, to allow for public participation, the application could be deferred.

DECISION:  DEFER

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

PROPOSAL: s ingle and two storey side to rear extension; single storey rear extension; and external alterations.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed that the application be deferred to allow for public participation, after a member of the public had contacted her when he could not register to speak as an objector.  He was not aware that the meeting was taking place.

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

The Interim Chief Planning Officer advised that letters to objectors had, inadvertently, not been sent by Planning Services.  Consequently, members of the public had not been able to participate as objectors.  Therefore, to allow for public participation, the application could be deferred.

DECISION:  DEFER

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

PROPOSAL:  creation of third floor comprising of three flats (3 x 2 bed); and bin and cycle stores.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed that the application be deferred to allow for public participation.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Anjana Patel, put to the vote, and agreed.

The Interim Chief Planning Officer advised that letters to objectors had, inadvertently, not been sent by Planning Services. Consequently, members of the public had not bee n able to participate as objectors.  Therefore, to allow for public participation, the application could be deferred.

DECISION:  DEFER

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

PROPOSAL:  prior approval telecommunication notification: Installation of 25m high lattice tower supporting 6 x antenna's and 4 x 300mm dishes; installation of 7 equipment cabinets within a fenced compound; and ancillary works.

The Committee received representation from Councillor Norman Stevenson (Back Bench) who urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal for the following reason:

1)            the proposed telecommunication mast, plus antennas, dishes and equipment cabinets housed within a compound, by reason of height and noticeable location, would be visually obtrusive and detrimental to the visual amenity within the locality and character and appearance of the Conservation Area abutting the site, contrary to policies DM1, DM7 and DM49 of the Development Management Policies local plan (2013) and policy CS1 Harrow Core Strategy (2012).

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

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Committee was asked to:

1)            grant prior approval of details of siting and appearance for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

DECISION:  GRANT

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

Councillors Ali, Assad, Brown and Robson voted to grant the application.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted against the application.

PROPOSAL:  redevelopment to provide two storey building containing multi-purpose teaching rooms and artists studios (Use Class F); demolition of three temporary classroom buildings; hard and soft landscaping including signage; and drainage works (as amended by the Addendum).

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 (and the Addendum).

DECISION:  GRANT

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

PROPOSAL:  installation of canopy to recycling bay (as amended by the Addendum).

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 unanimous.

Members received the report on the Request to review representations received and confirm the Article 4 (1) directions for the demolition of front boundary treatments within 10 of Harrow’s Conservation Areas.

An Article 4 Direction was a direction under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (“GPDO”) which enabled the Council to withdraw specified permitted development rights across a defined area.

The effect of this was to require planning permission for the specified works where normally such works would not require planning permission.  In Harrow, the Council had proactively made Article 4 Directions for the majority of its Conservation Areas in order to protect the special architectural or historic interest and character (or amenity) of the areas.

On 30 May 2018 the Planning Committee had agreed the officer’s recommendation to introduce an Article 4 direction for 14 Conservation Areas, subject to representations received during the statutory consultation period being reported back to Planning Committee, along with a recommendation as to whether or not to confirm them.

The Article 4 directions required planning permission for the demolition of all or any part of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure (by restricting Part 11 Class C of Schedule 2 to the GPDO) where there was already an Article 4 direction in place requiring planning permission for the alteration of a boundary treatment.  From December 2020 to April 2021, the Article 4 directions had been introduced as agreed, subject to the required consultation period.

The report covered the Directions of the Harrow Weald Park, Pinner and Stanmore and Edgware groups of Conservation Areas, where the statutory consultation period had been completed and the Directions needed to be confirmed before they lapsed.  

Representations had been received requesting clarification as to what the introduction of the Article 4 directions meant, which had been supplied in each instance without further comment or query in response.

The report, therefore, proposed to confirm the Article 4 Directions that were introduced for 10 conservation areas, noting that the responses to the Harrow on the Hill Conservation Areas Directions would be reported at a subsequent meeting, along with a recommendation as to whether they should be confirmed or not.  The geographic extent of the directions reflected that of the existing Article 4 Directions where rights had been withdrawn for the alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure.

Councillors Ashton and Patel expressed their reservations about imposing Article 4 Directions on to individual householders and that, at this late stage, the imposition would not make much difference to the integrity of long-established Conservation Areas.  They added that it was of concern that the Council appeared to favour influential developers and large organisations by recommending for grant inappropriate applications in, or abutting, Conservation Areas, thereby overlooking the importance of Harrow’s heritage assets. These recommendations were being made at the same time as making life very difficult for the individual householders, who lived in Harrow's Conservation Areas.

The Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 302.

Vote of Thanks

Members and Officers expressed their profound appreciation to Councillor Ghazanfar Ali for his services as Chair of the Planning Committee over the past months.  They wished him well in his future endeavours as Mayor of the London Borough of Harrow.

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

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