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 (item 1/04)

Councillor Stephen Greek declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a Local Authority appointed governor at Weald Rise Primary School.  As this was a potential conflict of interest, he would leave the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2016 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2016 be taken as read and signed as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:

1.            Paragraph 13 on page 191 to read:

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

2.            The final paragraph on page 192 to read:

(Signed) Councillor Anne Whitehead

Vice-Chair in the Chair

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 notice of them was received and there be a time limit of 15 minutes.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, Friday 8 April 2016.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

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 30 (Part 4B of the Constitution), representations be received in respect of item 1/02 and 1/05 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 – 62-64 Kenton Road, HarroW

REFERENCE:  P/0525/16 (Sav Developments Ltd)

DESCRIPTION:  Redevelopment To Provide A Four Storey Building With Basement For A Thirty-Three Roomed House Of Multiple Occupation (HMO) With Front And Rear Light Wells Amenity Space Parking Landscaping And Bin / Cycle Storage

Following questions from Members, an officer advised that the disabled access rooms planned for the ground floor met the required standards in terms of size.

DECISION:  GRANTED, permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to conditions and no significant number of representations material to planning consideration being received by 28^th April 2016.

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

1/02 – 11-17 HINDES ROAD, HARROW

REFERENCE:  P/4225/15 (YOURLIFE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD)

DESCRIPTION:  Redevelopment To Provide A Three And Four Storey Building For Twenty-Nine Retirement Living (Category Ii Sheltered Housing) Apartments For The Elderly; Parking; Private And Communal Amenity Space, Landscaping; Bin Storage

Following questions from Members, an officer advised that:

·                     the application complied with one of the four criteria required under Policy DM47A of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and met two of the other criteria in part, where the minimum requirement was compliance with one of the criteria;

·                     the Council did not have say over whether the proposed units, once built would be rented or sold, however, it was his understanding that the units would be sold;

·                     there was a complex process of testing what the appropriate contribution towards affordable housing as a financial contribution should be. The council had instructed independent assessors to review the amount proposed and the level quoted in the report was deemed by officers to be appropriate.  Financial contributions towards affordable housing could be pooled in order to provide new units.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1.            the applicant has failed to justify the loss of D1 education floorspace, contrary to policies DM47 of the Local Plan and 3.18 of the London Plan;

2.            the proposal, by reason of excessive height, scale and bulk and a lack of off-street parking, would have an unacceptable impact on local amenity and character, contrary to policies DM1 and DM43 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy, and 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan.

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

The Committee received representations from an objector, Mr Watson and a representative of the applicant, Mr Cooper.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 234.

Report of the Divisional Director of Planning Services.

The Committee received a report of the Divisional Director of Planning Services which set out an objection to a Tree Preservation Order No 955.

Following questions and comments from Members, an officer advised that:

·                     although subsidence to the dwelling house on the site had been identified, no evidence had been submitted to show that this subsidence had been caused by the tree;

·                     a topographical and construction survey could be undertaken by the applicant who had submitted plans for a replacement dwelling at the site, to ascertain whether the subsidence had been caused by the tree;

·                     the making of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) did not preclude the landowner from removing the tree in the future, but would require the landowner to make a TPO application with justification to demonstrate why the tree should be removed.

RESOLVED:  That TPO No. 955 Old Hall Drive (No.2) Pinner, notwithstanding the objections, be confirmed.

Reason for Decision:  The Pine at Old Hall Drive is considered to have significant visual public amenity value and as such should be properly safeguarded. If this TPO is not confirmed within 6 months of 19/01/2016, the statutory protection afforded to the aforementioned tree will be lost.