Agenda and minutes

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

RESOLVED:  That no Members, who were not members of the Committee, had indicated that they wished to speak at the meeting.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 September 2016 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 September 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 14 October 2016.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

To note that one public question had been received and responded to and in line with the statement made by the Chairman, the recording had been placed on the website.

In response to the supplemental question, an officer advised that information on the Council’s website regarding planning applications was being reviewed to ensure greater clarity and accuracy in the future.

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions or deputations 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 2/04 on the list of planning applications.

PROPOSAL:  Redevelopment to provide four storey building comprising 6 flats; flexible commercial use (classes A1, A2 &A) on ground floor; bin/cycle storage

Following a brief introduction to the report, officers responded to Members questions and comments as follows:

·                     the entrance to the development would be via the service road at the rear.  This area was overlooked by a number of external balconies and would be overlooked by balconies at the proposed development.  The development would have to comply with the principles of ‘secure by design’, and the applicant would be required to engage with the Metropolitan Police to ensure the proposed development was compliant.

DECISION:  GRANTED planning permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to conditions, and as amended by the addendum.

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

PROPOSAL:  Construction of additional three storeys to create six flats with parking and bin / cycle storage; external alterations.

DECISION:  GRANTED planning permission subject to authority being delegated to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement (or appropriate other enabling powers) and issue of the planning permission and subject to minor amendments to the conditions (set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report) or the legal agreement.

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

PROPOSAL:  The proposed development is to convert the roofspace into habitable accommodation by alteration of the roof to form gable end including installation of an upper floor side window; installation of a rear dormer window; and installation of two rooflights in the front roofslope.  The proposed development also includes a single storey front extension incorporating a front porch; single storey side tor ear extension; and a single storey rear conservatory.

An officer advised that the objection received had been from the owner/occupiers at No 24 Grasmere Gardens.  The objector had provided an amended version of her objection subsequent to the publication of the addendum, but that this did not differ significantly from the version included the addendum.

The Chair advised that the pre-existing boundary dispute at the site was a civil matter and not a planning matter.

DECISION:  GRANTED planning permission subject to the Conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the officer report, and as amended by the addendum.

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

PROPOSAL:  Timber Decking At Rear; External Alterations

Following a brief introduction to the report, officers responded to Members questions and comments as follows:

·                     the proposed new decking would be laid on the existing patio making the overall height of the patio 1.4m;

·                     the Council’s drainage engineers had reviewed the plans and had no objections as the property was not in a flood zone and only surface water run-off from the proposed decking may be an issue.  However, as the footprint would be the same or very similar to the existing one, there was no increased risk of flooding from the proposed decking, especially as the decking would be made of wooden planks which would allow water to run off into the ground.

A Member proposed deferring the application subject to a site visit.  The motion was seconded, put to the vote and lost.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1.            The proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to local amenity, contrary to policies DM1 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy, and 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan.

2.            The proposal fails to make adequate provision for the control and reduction of surface water run off, to the detriment of neighbouring properties, contrary to policy DM10 of the Local Plan.

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

The Committee received representations from an objector, Eleanor Kessler and the applicant, Mrs Hewitson.

DECISION:  GRANTED planning permission, subject to conditions and as amended by the addendum.

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

Councillors Keith Ferry, Barry Kendler, Nitin Parekh and Anne Whitehead voted for  the application.

Councillors June Baxter, Stephen Greek and Pritesh Patel voted against the application.