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.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 10 – Planning Applications Received (2/06)

Councillor June Baxter declared a pecuniary interest in that the applicant was a colleague and Member of the  Conservative Group.  She would leave the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Stephen Greek declared a pecuniary interest in that the applicant was a colleague and Member of the Conservative Group.  He would leave the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Pritesh Patel declared a pecuniary interest in that the applicant was a colleague and Member of the Conservative Group.  He would leave the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2017 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2017 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

1 September 2017.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were none.

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 on the list of planning applications.

PROPOSAL:  Updated terms and conditions of the Community Uses Agreement (CUA) relating to the application for Harrow School Sports Hall and Swimming Pool

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

·                     the CUA would operate all year round and not simply during school term time;

·                     the three additional representatives on the Board would be nominated by the six permanent members of the Board on an annual basis, as set out in detail in the CUA;

·                     the sports and swimming facilities at the school would be available for use during school holidays.

The Committee received representations from an objector, Eileen Kinnear, the applicant, Nick Shryane, for the applicant.

The Committee voted to agree the updated terms and conditions of the CUA.

DECISION:  Agreed, theterms and conditions of the updated Community Uses Agreement (CUA) relating to the application for Harrow School Sports Hall and Swimming Pool, 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 Ghazanfar Ali, Simon Brown, Keith Ferry, Sachin Shah voted to grant the application.

Councillors June Baxter, Stephen Greek and Pritesh Patel abstained from voting.

The applications below were considered together as they related to the same site.

PROPOSAL:  P/1945/17 - Redevelopment to provide three to five storey building with basement parking to create 37 flats and class D1 unit at ground floor; amenity areas; landscaping; bin and cycle storage; re-location of vehicle access on Hawthorne Avenue; parking permit restricted.

PROPOSAL:  P/1946/17 Redevelopment to provide three to five storey building to create 37 flats and Class D1 unit at ground floor; amenity areas; landscaping with associated surface parking; bin and cycle storage; re?location of vehicle access on Hawthorne Avenue.

An officer advised that the applications followed on from a previous application P/5255/15 which had been refused at Planning Committee inMay 2016 and the subsequent appeal had been dismissed.  Following a brief overview of the reports, officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows:

·                     the two applications were almost identical, with the only differences between being a proposal for basement parking and parking permit restricted development for application P/1945/17.  The proposed parking ratio for P/1946/17 was 0.5 and would also be parking permit restricted;

·                     although the applicant had offered to implement 1:1 parking at the proposed development, the site was located in a District Centre, which was in a PTAL 5 (Public Transport Accessibility Level) area and was located close to a Town Centre, which had a PTAL rating of 6.  The 1:1 parking proposals were not compliant with the London Plan or the Local Development Plan;

·                     no objections had been received from Highways or the London Borough of Brent;

·                     the allocation of parking spaces was up to the applicant and did not form part of the planning application;

·                     the applicant had submitted a Financial Viability Appraisal to support the zero provision of affordable housing.  The submitted information had been independently reviewed and tested to ensure that the zero provision of affordable housing was the maximum reasonable affordable housing that could be made as part of the proposed scheme.

It was reported that the affordable housing quota was no longer viable under the revised plans.  This was due to the recent increase in construction costs, the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) and carbon offsetting payments that would be incurred by the applicant.

An officer added that the review mechanism would provide an open book review of the scheme at 80% of the sales.  The Council would seek to re?claim 70% of any super profit (if any) generated by the scheme in order to achieve a policy compliant scheme with regard to Affordable Housing.

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 Chair reminded Members that the planning inspector had indicated that he had found the design acceptable.

The motion was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 436.

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment to provide single and two storey building to create car sales showroom with ancillary office and workshop (sui generis) and associated parking.

The Committee voted to grant the application.

DECISION:  GRANTED,planning permission.

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

PROPOSAL:  Conversion of basement level to single dwelling, with associated sunken terrace at the side, boundary treatment and landscaping.

The Committee voted to grant the application.

DECISION:  GRANTED, planning permission subject to the Conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

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

PROPOSAL:  Erection of a Single and Two Storey Side to Rear Extension.

The Committee voted to grant the application.

DECISION:  GRANTED, planning permission.

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

PROPOSAL:  Demolition of existing public conveniences and redevelopment to provide a three storey building comprising six flats with amenity space and bin / cycle storage.

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

·                     there was sufficient on street parking nearby the proposed development;

·                     the proposed location of the refuse store was deemed acceptable and no objections had been received from Highways or the Refuse Collection Service.

The Committee voted to grant the application.

DECISION:  GRANTED, planning permission subject to the Conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

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

PROPOSAL:  Change of use from retail warehouse club (Sui Generis) to Indoor climbing centre (Class D2)

The Committee voted to grant the application.

DECISION:  GRANTED,

(1)          authority be Delegated to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise, and Planning to determine the application;

(2)          planning permission be granted 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 continued negotiation and completion of the Section 106 legal agreement 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, and as amended by the Addendum.

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

PROPOSAL:  Erection of a first floor rear extension with Juliette balcony to create part two storey dwelling; four rooflights in front and two rooflights in front roofslopes; enclosure of front porch.

Councillors June Baxter, Stephen Greek and Pritesh Patel left the room during consideration of this item.

The Committee voted to grant the application.

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:  Erection of a single storey rear extension

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

·                     the proposal would not compromise the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers by reason of overshadowing, loss of light, loss of outlook or loss of privacy.

The Committee voted to grant the application.

DECISION:  GRANTED, planning permission.

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

PROPOSAL:  Erection of a single storey rear extension and conversion of a garage to habitable room.

The Committee voted to grant the application.

DECISION:  GRANTED, planning permission.

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