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 there were no declarations of interests made by Members.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2017 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 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 in which they were received.  There will be a time limit of 15 minutes for the asking and answering of public questions.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm,

Friday 17 November 2017.  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.

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 2/03 on the list of planning applications.

PROPOSAL:  Single Storey Side To Rear Extensions To Both Sides Connecting Detached Garage To Dwelling House

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

·                     the overall footprint of the current application was 229 square metres whereas this had been 251 square metres under the previous application;

·                     officers and the Committee were obliged to consider the application before them and could not take into account any possible future application that might be submitted by the applicant. Any such application would have to be judged on its own merits.

A Member expressed concern that granting the application could set a precedent as the applicant could submit a subsequent application to further develop the site.  The Chair requested that it be noted in the minutes that the Planning Service would need to be convinced about the merits of  any future application that sought to increase the footprint or the number of storeys at the development.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1.            The proposed redevelopment of the site, by reason of the excessive footprint of the building and its encroachment on a private rear garden area, would represent overdevelopment of the site, and would result in an over intensive and an inappropriate form of development, at odds with the Council’s spatial strategy for growth to the detriment of the character and appearance of the locality, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policies 3.5A and 7.1D of The London Plan (2016) and core policies CS1 A and CS1 B of the Harrow Core Strategy 2011-2026 and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Garden Land Development (2013).

2.            The proposed building, by reason of its excessive bulk, size and scale, unsatisfactory design, proximity to site boundaries and lack of adequate setting space, would give rise to an unsatisfactory, inappropriate and visually dominant and obtrusive form of development which would be at odds with the predominant pattern of development on the northern side of Elms Road, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the surrounding area and neighbouring amenity, contrary to policies 7.1D, 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan (2016), core policy CS1 B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Guide (2010).

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

The Committee voted on the officer recommendation 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 by a majority of votes.

Councillors Simon Brown, Keith Ferry, Christine Robson & Sachin Shah voted for the application.

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

PROPOSAL:  Conservatory At Rear

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:  Conversion Of Dwelling Into Two Flats; Single Storey Side Orangery Extension; Bin And Cycle Stores; Parking; External Alterations (Demolition Of Detached Garage)

Following questions and comments from Members, an officer advised that the Council’s Conservation Officer was of the view that rendering the western flank wall of the side extension would not detrimentally affect the character of the Conservation area.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

‘The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the Pinner Road Conservation Area, as well as the amenity of neighbouring properties, contrary to policies DM1 and DM7 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy and 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan.’

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

The Committee received representations from an objector, Mr Sareen and from, Mr Thomas, the applicant.

The Committee agreed to add an additional condition requiring the applicant to plant trees to replace those which would be removed from the common boundary with Pinner Court and an Informative to be attached to Condition 3 mentioning that a rendered finish would not be acceptable.

The Committee voted on the officer recommendation 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 Committee as set out above 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 Simon Brown, Keith Ferry, Christine Robson & Sachin Shah  voted for the application.

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

PROPOSAL: Change Of Use Of Office Buildings Civic 3 - 6 (Use Class B1) To School (Use Class D1) To Provide Temporary Home For Pinner Wood Primary School;  Installation Of Two Temporary Single Storey Kitchen Blocks On Southern Elevation (Retrospective)

DECISION:  GRANTED, temporary 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: Change Of Use Of First Floor From Retail (Class A1) To Two Flats (Class C3); Creation Of Third And Fourth Floor To Provide Three Flats; Refuse And Cycle Storage

Following questions and comments from Members, an officer advised that the ground floor unit would continue as A1 use.

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 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.

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