Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED: To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:-

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 following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 10 – Planning Applications Received (1/03)

Councillor Marilyn Ashton declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was resident within the consultation area relating to this application, though she did not live in close proximity to the application site and she was a member of the Harrow Weald Board of Conservators.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 10 – Planning Applications Received (2/10)

Councillor June Baxter declared a pecuniary interest in that she was resident  in the vicinity of Heathfield School.  She would leave the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 10 – Planning Applications Received (1/03)

Councillor Stephen Greek declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he lived in the vicinity of Alexandra Drive.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 10 – Planning Applications Received

CouncillorPritesh Patel declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he lived in the vicinity of Alexandra Drive.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 April 2015 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That in accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 30 (Part 4B of the Constitution), representations be received in respect of item numbers 1/01, 1/04, 2/06, 2/08 & 2/10 on the list of planning applications.

In accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the Addendum was admitted late to the agenda as it contained information relating to various items on the agenda and was based on information received after the despatch of the agenda.  It was admitted to the agenda in order to enable Members to consider all information relevant to the items before them for decision.

RESOLVED:  That authority be given to the Head of Planning to issue the decision notices in respect of the applications considered.

1/01 - 1 SUDBURY HILL, HARROW

Following questions from Members, an officer advised that:

·                     objections raised by Brent Council in relation to the previous planning application for the site had related to concerns about safety and traffic congestion during peak periods.  The current application had a transport statement and traffic surveys, which had followed standard assessment methodologies, had not identified any additional risks in relation to traffic issues;

·                     the independent assessment of the Financial Viability Assessment concluded that the proposed scheme would provide an affordable housing on site  in excess of what the viability assessment suggested was viable and consequently there would be no additional financial contribution required;

·                     the Committee’s concerns regarding the right hand turn would be forwarded to the applicant.  An officer indicated that the transport assessment indicated a very low risk from right turning movements, however, in the interim officers would monitor the situation during the first three months after completion of the development and carry out a highway safety audit.  The council may be able to consider right turn restrictions into the estate at a later date if these were considered necessary.  Any issues would be reported to the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Portfolio Holder of Environment, Crime and Community Safety;

·                     the site allocation set minimum rather than maximum standards for the development.  The design of the balconies were deemed to be of an appropriate design and were considered to be private amenity. 

The Committee received representations from an objector, Mr Breen, and from a representative of the Applicant, Mr Lambert.

A Member proposed a motion for refusal on the following grounds:

1.            The proposal would be an overdevelopment which, by reason of excessive height, scale and bulk and close proximity to neighbouring properties, would harm the character of the area and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to policies 7.4 of the London Plan, CS1.B of the Core Strategy and DM1 of the Local Plan.

2.            The proposal provides insufficient off-street car parking in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to policies CS1.S of the Core Strategy and DM42 of the Local Plan.

3.            The proposal would provide an unacceptably low proportion of family homes, which would result in a poor housing mix, contrary to policies CS1.I of the Core Strategy and DM24 of the Local Plan.

4.            The proposal would give rise to unacceptable traffic congestion without sufficient mitigation, contrary to CS1.Q of the Core Strategy.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

RESOLVED:  To note that a site visit would take place for 6 Aylwards Rise.