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 -  Major Applications - 1/02: Vaughan Road Car Park, Vaughan Road

Councillor June Baxter declared a non-pecuniary interest in that her colleague Councillor Paul Osborn lived in the vicinity of the application site.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Stephen Greek declared a non-pecuniary interest in that his colleague Councillor Paul Osborn lived in the vicinity of the application site.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Pritesh Patel declared a non-pecuniary interest in that his colleague Councillor Paul Osborn lived in the vicinity of the application site.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 10  - Major Applications - 1/02: Vaughan Road Car Park, Vaughan Road;

Agenda Item 11 – Other Applications Recommended for Grant - 2/05: Central Depot, Forward Drive, Harrow; 2/06: Harrow Weald Recreation Ground, High Road, Harrow

Councillor Graham Henson declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was the Portfolio Holder for Environment.  He would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item  11 – 2/03: Part Second & Third Floors, Premier House, Canning Road, Wealdstone

Councillor Keith Ferry declared a non-pecuniary interest in that the applicant was one of the sponsors of Harrow’s delegation to the Mipim Property Trade Show in March 2017.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item  - 1/02: Vaughan Road Car Park, Vaughan Road, West Harrow

Councillor Christine Robson declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was Ward Councillor for West Harrow.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 september 2017 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 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 22 September 2017.  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 1/01 on the list of planning applications.

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing 4 dwelling houses and redevelopment to provide four storey building to accommodate 26 flats, with underground parking to accommodate 23 parking spaces, 3 surface parking spaces, cycle and bin stores and 2 x vehicle access.

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

·                     the application would need to receive Secure by design accreditation before works could begin at the site;

·                     the tree in question was considered to be of poor quality as it had been poorly maintained over recent years.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

‘The application would be an over-development with excessive scale and bulk and insufficient parking provision, causing harm to local character and amenity, contrary to policies DM1 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy, and 6.13, 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 Simon Lewis and from, Mr Peter Biggs, a representative of the applicant.

DECISION:  GRANTED

Recommendation A

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 and other enabling legislation 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.

Recommendation B

That if, by 28th March 2018 or as such extended period as may be agreed by the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, then it is recommended to delegate the decision to REFUSE planning permission to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning.

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

Councillors Ghazanfar Ali, Keith Ferry, Graham Henson & Christine Robson voted for the application.

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

PROPOSAL:  Redevelopment of car park to provide a four to eight storey building comprising 242sqm of workshop/commercial/community (Class A2/A3/B1/D1) space on the ground floor and 33 residential flats on the upper floors; amenity areas; landscaping with associated surface parking; bin and cycle storage; substation; and re-location of vehicle access on Vaughan Road.

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

·                     the Council owned Company which would run the development had not yet been set up;

·                     the views assessment had concluded that there would be no adverse impact on protected views;

·                     the existing No Entry sign would be re-located closer to Bessborough Road.  This would free up more space on the Highway which would be given over to residents’ parking.  These changes would not adversely affect the flow of traffic in the area.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

‘The application, by reason of height, scale, bulk, design and lack of parking, would harm local character and amenity, contrary to policies DM1 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy, and 6.13, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan.’

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

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 by a majority of votes.

Councillors Ghazanfar Ali, Keith Ferry, Graham Henson & Christine Robson voted for the application.

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

PROPOSAL: Erection of a First Floor Side to Rear Extension

DECISION:  GRANTED, planning permission, as amended by the Addendum.

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

PROPOSAL:  Conversion of dwelling into two flats; single and two storey side extension; conversion of garage to habitable room; external alterations; bin and cycle stores

Following questions and comments from Members, an officer advised that the three TPO (Tree Protection Order) trees located in the front garden did not constitute a significant loss as the trees had not been well maintained over recent years,  and replacement trees had not been requested due to the small size of the plot.

The chair advised that the applicant would be required to make a CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) payment which would offset the loss of trees.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1.            ‘The application would harm the character of the area, 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 application would constitute inappropriate development on garden land, contrary to policies CS1 of the Core Strategy and 3.5 of the London Plan. 

3.            The application will result in an unacceptable loss of TPO trees, contrary to policy DM22 of the Local Plan.’

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

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 by a majority of votes.

Councillors Ghazanfar Ali, Keith Ferry, Graham Henson & Christine Robson voted for the application.

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

PROPOSAL: Change of use of existing class D1 use on part second and third floors to 22 single occupancy collective living units with shared facilities on each floor (sui generis); provision of refuse/recycling facilities and cycle parking.

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

·                     no further comments had been received from either the Council’s travel planner or waste officer;

·                     the case officer was satisfied that that marketing of the second and third floors, which had lain vacant for some time, had been robust, despite which there had been little interest in the premises;

·                     officers had visited the ‘Collective’, which was a similar development in Brent.  Collective living developments, due to their low rents, enabled younger residents to get on the housing ladder;

·                     any issues relating to potential future tenants at the development did not fall within the remit of the Planning Committee;

·                     it would be possible, under the S106 agreement, to require the applicant to submit quarterly reports regarding the management and maintenance of the development;

·                     it would be possible to add a new condition regarding internal access from the rear yard.

DECISION:  GRANTED,

1.            Granted planning permission subject to the Conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the officer report, an additional condition regarding internal access from the rear yard and as amended by the Addendum; and

2.            The completion of a Section 106 agreement with the heads of terms set out by 15th December 2017 (or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by the Divisional Director of Planning). Delegated Authority to be given to the Divisional Director of Planning in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the sealing of the Section 106 agreement and other enabling legislation and to agree any minor amendments to the conditions or the legal agreement.

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

PROPOSAL: Demolish existing two dwelling houses and redevelopment to provide three, two storey dwellings with habitable roof space and integral garages, new access, parking, boundary treatment, landscaping and bin store and cycle store.

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: The proposal is for a temporary office building to facilitate works to existing office accommodation on the site.

DECISION:  GRANTED, planning permission, as amended by the Addendum.

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

PROPOSAL:  A single storey front extension, with access steps to the front, side entrances and also a storage unit to the rear. 

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

·                     responsibility for maintenance of the Sports Pavillion would most likely be set out in the lease conditions.  However, information regarding the conditions of the lease had not been submitted by the applicant.

A Member noted that a total of 34 consultation letters had been sent to neighbouring properties.  In his view, users of the park should also have been consulted.  He requested that in the future, when considering similar applications, officers should ensure that all relevant stakeholders were consulted.

DECISION:  GRANTED, planning permission, as amended by the Addendum.

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

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no site visits to be arranged.