Agenda and minutes

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

Councillor Christine Robson                     Councillor Nitin Parekh

RESOLVED: To note that Councillor Anne Whitehead be appointed Vice Chair of the Committee for the 2016/17 Municipal Year.

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 (1/02 )

Councillor Graham Henson declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Crime and Community Safety with delegated responsibility for traffic and parking issues.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 10 – Planning Applications Received (1/02)

Councillor Barry Kendler declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he lived in vicinity of the application site and knew the objector for this item.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 10 – Planning Applications Received (1/02 )

Councillor Nitin Parekh declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a regular visitor to the temple associate with Avanti House Trust.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 10 – Planning Applications Received (1/02)

CouncillorPritesh Patel declared a non-pecuniary interest in that his daughter attended Whitchurch Primary School.  He would leave in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 April 2016 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 April 2016 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 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 20 May 2016.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

RESOLVED:  To note that none were received.

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 1/01, 1/02 (this item was deferred) 1/03, 1/05, 2/05 on the list of planning applications.

[Note:  Planning application 2/02 & 2/03 were subsequently deferred, and so the representations were not received].

Report of the Divisional Director, Planning - circulated separately.

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Planning Protocol, where Councillors disagree with the advice of the Divisional Director, Planning, it will be the Members' responsibility to clearly set out the reasons for refusal where the Officer recommendation is for grant.  The planning reasons for rejecting the Officer's advice must be clearly stated, whatever the recommendation and recorded in the minutes.  The Officer must be given the opportunity to explain the implications of the contrary decision.

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 - Churchill Hall, Hawthorne Avenue, Harrow     

REFERENCE:  P/5255/15

DESCRIPTION:  Redevelopment To Provide Three To Five Storey Building To Create 37 Flats And Class D1/D2 Unit At Ground Floor; Amenity Areas; Landscaping And Associated Parking; Bin And Cycle Storage; Relocation Of Vehicle Access On Hawthorne Avenue

Following questions from Members, an officer advised that:

·                     National Planning Policy guidance stated that new developments of this type should be innovative and contemporary in design and should not simply replicate the style and design of surrounding buildings.  The Council’s Urban Design officer considered the proposed design to be appropriate for a landmark building such as this.  The fact that the building would be 5 storeys on the corner of Hawthorne Avenue and Kenton Road, would help to break up the façade;

·                     the levels of available parking at the development were in keeping with the findings of a robust transport survey which had been undertaken by the applicant;

·                     it was difficult to predict any future use for the two D1 & D2 commercial units at the site, or whether their users would require parking.  However, there were a number of other commercial use premises in the vicinity of the proposed development, which did not have dedicated parking.  In planning terms, It was not possible to consider or control any likely impact that other local developments might have on parking and traffic in the area;

·                     if, in the future one of the commercial units were to be sub-divided, then there was a potential access point to the side of the proposed development which could be used.

The Committee received representations from, Mr Ian Fernandez, a resident and from Mr Richard Henley, the applicant’s agent.

A Member stated that, he had a number of unresolved concerns regarding the development with regard to its proposed bulk, scale and design as well as its likely impact on traffic flow and parking in the area. In his view, the objection raised by the London Borough of Brent was a valid one.

A Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

The proposal, by reason of excessive height, scale, bulk, inappropriate design and insufficient off-street parking, would have an unacceptable impact on local character, amenity, parking capacity and highway safety, 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 won.

DECISION:  REFUSED

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 244.

RESOLVED:  To note that a site visit to be undertaken for item 2/06 – 87 Sandringham Crescent, Harrow.