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 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 following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 4 – The Hive Football Centre (Formerly Prince Edward Playing Fields), Camrose Avenue, Edgware

Councillor Mrinal Choudhury declared a non-prejudicial interest in that he had visited The Hive and Barnet Football Club.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Keith Ferry declared a personal interest in that he regularly attended football matches at The Hive.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he had a general interest in the application.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

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 at this meeting.

Report of the Interim Divisional Director of Planning.

An officer introduced the report which set out the recommendation of officers, following the receipt of expert legal and planning advice, in relation to the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for planning application reference P/0665/13 for The Hive Football Centre.  In accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the report was considered as urgent because the Council was required to issue its Statement of Case to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of the planning appeal in relation to The Hive Football Centre by 29 April 2014.  It would therefore be too late to consider the matter at the Special Planning Committee scheduled for 30 April 2014.

The Committee was informed that the purpose of the meeting was to consider what evidence should be presented by the Council in relation to the current planning appeal against the refusal of planning application reference number P/0665/13.  It was not to revisit the original application or subsequent decisions nor to vary or amend the decision notice.  Attention was drawn to the fact that the enforcement notice seeking the removal of the west stand and floodlights had since been withdrawn following receipt of expert legal and planning advice.

In accordance with Procedural Rule 4.1, the Committee agreed that Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Nizam Ismail and Sachin Shah be allowed to speak at the meeting for a maximum of five minutes each.

The officer outlined the application for the variation of Condition 29 discussed by the Committee on 3 September 2013, following the original permission on 8 April 2008, indicating that the development and floodlights had not been built in accordance with the plans.

The three reasons for refusal on 3 September 2014 were as follows:

1)                 ‘The application has failed to demonstrate that the impact of the floodlights would not result in significant harm to the amenities of neighbours y virtue of unacceptable lighting levels within and adjacent to residential properties surrounding or near to the site.  The proposals are therefore contrary to policies DM 1C and DM 48C of the Development Management Policies Local Plan.’

2)                 ‘‘The height of the west stand would result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring properties, contrary to Policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management (2013), Policy CS1-B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan (2011).

3)                 ‘The west stand by reason of excessive height, bulk and proximity to the site boundary, would cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties, contrary to policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2-13) Policy CS1.B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan (2011).

The Committee noted aerial imagery showing the distance between the boundary of Phase 2 and the back of the nearest residential properties of some 79 metres at the top, 83 metres at mid point and 78 metres at the bottom.  Given those distances, and the fact that the Jubilee Line was sited on a raised embankment between the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 534.