Agenda and minutes

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

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  12 D – 11 Sherington Avenue, Harrow

Councillors Ghazanfar Ali, Simon Brown, Keith Ferry, and Sachin Shah declared pecuniary interests in that the applicant was related to a Member of the Labour Group.  They would leave the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 11A  & 11B – Central Depot, Forward Drive & Waxwell Lane Car Park, Pinner

Councillor Sachin Shah declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he had been involved in discussions regarding applications 1/01 & 1/02 in his capacity as Leader of the Council.  He stated that he had not pre-determined the matter and would consider both items with an open mind.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 January 2018 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 January 2018 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 on

Friday 16 February 2018.  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 1/02 – Waxwell Lane Car Park on the list of planning applications.

RESOLVED:  That Addendums 1& 2 be accepted.

PROPOSAL:  Redevelopment To Provide Part Single, Part Two And Part Three Storey Building With Plant Room On Roof And Part First Floor Mezzanine Incorporating Workshop (B1 Light Industrial), Office (B1 Use), Warehouse (B8 Use) And Ancillary Uses; Multi Storey Car Park And External Car Parking; Bin Store (Demolition Of Existing Buildings)

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

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

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of existing car park to provide 20 three-storey dwellinghouses (use class c3) (14 x 3 bedroom houses & 6 x 4 bedroom houses) associated car & cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping & replacement boundary treatment

An officer advised that the Committee was being asked to approve the principles of the application, subject to the issue of the viability of affordable housing being returned to committee for final resolution.

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

·                     the Council’s Highways Officer had confirmed that there were no objections to the loss of the car parking area.  The applicant had offered to apply a parking permit restriction which would prevent residents at the development from being able to obtain permits allowing them to park on-street during the operational hours of the surrounding CPZ.  The Council’s Highways officer considered this to be acceptable.   Furthermore, the site was located close to the Pinner transport hub.  The transport surveys had concluded that the business permit bays in Waxwell Lane were under-utilised and that the current demand for permits could be accommodated within the Chapel Lane car park, which was also under-utilised;

·                     the transport surveys had been carried out throughout the day on a Thursday and on a Saturday.

The Committee received representations from an objector, Mr Kirilenko, a representative of the applicant, Mr Lloyd and Councillor Norman Stevenson.

The Chair stated that the Committee would vote to approve the principles of the application.  He requested that a more detailed breakdown regarding the parking spaces for affected business, feedback from local supermarkets about the availability of parking spaces in their car parks, and the affordable housing quota be submitted to the March 2018 meeting of the Committee.

A Member requested that the application be deferred until the March meeting of the Committee as he would prefer to make a decision once all relevant information was available.  In his view, Members would not otherwise be in a position to make a fully informed decision.  This request was not agreed.

The Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

‘The proposal will result in an unacceptable loss of public and commercial parking and an insufficient level of residential parking provision, causing harm to local economic vitality and local amenity, contrary to policies DM1, DM42 and DM43 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy and 4.8 and 6.13 of the London Plan.’

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

DECISION:  GRANTED,

1.            planning permission, as amended by the Addendums, subject to the conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the officer report and subject to the following information being submitted to the March 2018 meeting of the Committee for agreement:

a)     more detailed information regarding the availability of parking spaces for affected business and feedback from local supermarkets about the availability of parking spaces in their car parks; and

b)     the viability of affordable housing.

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was by a majority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 546.

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment to provide a three storey building accommodating Nine Flats; New Access; Parking; Landscaping; Cycle and Bin Stores

The application site was in fact located in Greenhill Ward and had erroneously listed in the agenda as being located in Harrow on the Hill Ward.

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

Although the proposed location of the bin store did not comply with the Council’s Refuse Code of Practice (which encouraged bin placement to be within 10.0m of the point of pick up), a condition requiring a revised refuse strategy in compliance with the Refuse Code of Practice would be attached to the decision.  There were 14 communal bins which would need to be transferred to the kerbside on collection days and this would be managed by the building manager.

DECISION:  GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the officer report and as amended by the first Addendum.

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

PROPOSAL: Demolish existing dwelling house and redevelopment to provide a three storey building accommodating nine flats; new pedestrian and vehicle access from Walpole Close; parking; landscaping; cycle and bin stores.

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

·                     prior approval had been granted for the property in October 2017;

·                     whereas the Council’s Garden Land SPD (2013) sought to resist the loss of garden land within the borough, paragraph 3.6 of the SPD stated that garden land development excluded the redevelopment of an existing dwelling or group of dwellings to provide dwellings or flats on the same building footprint, plus any appropriate enlargements (permitted extensions).

The Chair clarified that the SPD sought to prevent the building of additional accommodation on garden land and only applied in cases where the original dwelling house was still extant.  The proposed development would have largely the same footprint as the original dwelling and had Permitted Development rights attached to it.

An officer advised that The Garden Land Development SPD (2013) set out at paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 what constituted garden land development, as follows:

‘For the avoidance of doubt, garden land development excludes the following:

c)            the redevelopment of an existing dwelling or group of dwellings to provide multiple dwellings or flats on the same building footprint, plus any appropriate enlargement(s).’

An officer clarified that if the applicant were to activate the prior approval, then he would be free to build on the garden area.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

‘The proposal would be an overdevelopment that would harm local character and amenity, and result in the loss of garden land and the loss of family housing, contrary to policies DM1 and DM24 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy, and 3.5, 3.8, 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 second 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 for the application.

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

PROPOSAL: Outline application for access, appearance, layout and scale for  the erection of a two storey extension above the existing two storey mid-terrace building to provide nine flats (two, three bedroom flats and seven, one bedroom flats), alongside an integrated bin store and bicycle store at ground floor level.

Following a question from a Member, an officer confirmed that the refuse storage area would be located at the rear of the property at the ground floor level and would be accessible via the rear access lift.

DECISION:  GRANTED,

RECOMMENDATION A

1.            Granted planning permission subject to authority being delegated to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning until the expiry period of consultation has been completed on 22^nd February 2018;

2.            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 as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report or the legal agreement and as amended by the first Addendum.

RECOMMENDATION B

That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 21/04/2018, 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 unanimous.

PROPOSAL: Single and two storey side to rear extension, single storey rear extension, rear dormer, two rooflights in front roofslope to create habitable roofspace.

Councillors Ghazanfar Ali, Simon Brown, Keith Ferry & Sachin Shah left the room during consideration of this item.

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: Creation of additional third floor to existing building to provide an additional 9 self contained flats (Use Class C3)

This application was withdrawn.

PROPOSAL:  Demolition of existing dwellinghouse and redevelopment to provide a two storey building with basement level and habitable roofspace for six flats; parking; boundary treatment; landscaping; communal amenity space; bin / cycle storage

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

·                     there was no planning history associated with the property;

·                     the proposal conformed to the requirements of Harrow’s Garden Land SPD and would encroach into the garden area by a few metres only.  This area would form part of the amenity space for 3 of the basement flats in the form of basement light wells.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

‘The proposal would be an overdevelopment with insufficient parking provision that would harm local character and amenity, and result in the loss of garden land and the loss of family housing, contrary to policies DM1, DM24 and DM42 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy, and 3.5, 3.8, 6.15, 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 first 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 for the application.

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