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 there were no declarations of interests made by Members.

That the minutes of the meeting held on21 February 2018 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 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, Friday 16 March 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 1/01, 1/02 and 2/01 on the list of planning applications.

RESOLVED:  To accept both Addendums and the Supplemental Agenda.

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

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

·                     traffic surveys had indicated that there were sufficient parking spaces located throughout the local area that could accommodate the displaced vehicles from Waxwell Lane Car Park.  The intention of the surveys was to demonstrate the likely impact the development would have on parking in the area.  The surveys were not intended to consider any possible future expansion of the town centre or any additional potential  increase in footfall or parking needs.  It should be noted that a one-hour restriction on parking in the mornings from 11.00 am -12.00 pm was currently in operation.

The Committee received representations from two objectors, Ms J Waller  and Mr K Kirilenko; from Mr Bond, a representative of the applicant; and Councillor Norman Stevenson.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

‘The proposal will result in an unacceptable loss of public 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.

A Member stated that Pinner was well served by public car parks, on street parking, pay and display bays and added that the station car park offered free parking on weekends.

DECISION:  GRANTED,

(1)          planning permission subject to the conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the officer report, and as amended by the Addendum and the Supplemental Agenda;

(2)          authority 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 Shadow Section 106 legal agreement and other enabling legislation and issue of the planning permission.

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 and Anne Whitehead voted for the application.

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

PROPOSAL:  Hybrid planning application for the comprehensive, phased, redevelopment of the Grange Farm Estate. The development comprises two elements:

i)             Detailed Planning Application for Phase 1 (Plot 2) comprising; Demolition of existing dwellings; Erection of Buildings C, D and E ranging from three to seven storeys in height to provide 89 residential units; Realignment of public highway; Landscaping of public realm; associated parking and cycle parking spaces.

ii)            Outline Application for access only and subject to Design Code (December 2017) in respect of Phases 2 and 3 comprising: Demolition of existing buildings; Erection of buildings on Plots 1 and 3 to 8 of up to max 93.70 metres in height above ordnance survey to provide 485 residential units; Community Centre (up to 1,350sqm) for D1/D2 uses within Plot 9; Community Facility (up to 282sqm) for D1 use within Plot 7.

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

·                     the Ministry of Defence had voiced concerns regarding the height of the cranes that could be used at the site and suggested a condition relating to this be attached in the event planning permission were to be granted.  Condition 32 required the applicant to provide details of cranes and other tall construction equipment to the local planning authority for approval;

·                     if the MOD required additional revisions to be made to the application then this would need to be reported back to the Planning Committee.

The Committee received representations Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane.

DECISION:  GRANTED,

(1)           authority delegated to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning to finalise the drafting of the planning conditions and Planning Obligations listed within the officer report, and as amended by the Addendum; and

(2)           the application be referred to the Mayor of London (the GLA) as a Stage 2 referral; and

(3)           subject to the Mayor of London (or delegated authorised officer) advising that he is content to allow the Council to determine the application itself and does not wish to direct refusal, or to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of determining the application; and

(4)           that by 24^th June 2018 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by the Chairman of the Planning Committee, authority to be given to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning, in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services, for the sealing of the (shadow) section 106 Planning Obligations, other enabling legislation, and to agree any minor amendments to the conditions or the Planning Obligations.  The proposed (shadow) section 106 Planning Obligation Heads of Terms cover the matters listed below under Planning Obligations; and

(5)           subject to the withdrawal of the Statutory Objection of the Ministry of Defence, or the applications referral to the Secretary of State as an application not in accordance with the Development Plan.

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

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment to provide three storey building for 8 form entry secondary school; associated ground works including provision of soft landscaping and hard landscaping (part demolition of existing single storey teaching block)

DECISION:  GRANTED

(1)          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: Full planning application:  Redevelopment to create a  part four/part six storey building with additional rooftop plant and façade/screen above fifth floor level, to provide approximately 9,362 sqm Gross Internal Area (GIA) of office floorspace (Use Class B1) and associated civic facilities, incorporating a semi basement car park (34 spaces) /plant area, a surface level car park (57 spaces) associated public realm and landscaping works, incorporating service bays, a cycle parking pavilion/ other cycle parking.

Outline planning application:  Construction of a building for a place of worship and ancillary residential use (Use Class D1 (h)) between one and three storeys in height with a single basement level to provide floorspace between 321 and VL (GIA) together with public realm and landscaping works, incorporating surface level car parking (2 accessible spaces) and cycle parking (with all matters reserved)

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

·                     the Transitional Travel Plan would allow time for staff to adapt to the new arrangements and to travel to work by alternative methods;

·                     evidence from the staff travel survey had informed the Travel Needs Assessment.  In accordance with the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy, officers were working closely with Transport for London (TfL) to encourage modal shift.  It should be noted that the proposed site was located in a high PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) area, and a number of local transport initiatives would mitigate against the loss of parking spaces at the current civic centre site.  These included the provision of a car pool scheme at the new Civic Centre, three additional Highways projects planned in the vicinity of the proposed new Civic Centre, a bus priority scheme, the implementation of a ‘quietways’ cycle route to Wembley and Central London and a ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ funding bid to improve the rates of walking and cycling in the area;

·                     parking at the current Civic Centre site would continue to be available during the initial stages of construction of the new site but these would be gradually phased out.  Officers were also looking into additional parking options in the area as part of the Transitional Travel Plan;

·                     the Town Centre parking survey had indicated the need for 60 spaces.  There were 57 spaces available in the Town Centre and an additional 12 spaces in surrounding streets, which exceeded the requirements.  The Survey had factored in projected increase in parking, assessed parking spaces available in other parts of Wealdstone and how this would affect local businesses and residents.  The Banqueting Suite would be impacted by the loss of parking to some degree and the Council was in discussions with the owner of the Banqueting Suite regarding how to mitigate against this;

·                     in terms of design, the intention was that the new Civic Centre building should be a vibrant landmark building that would stand out in the local context and its design would re-inforce its civic purpose.  The proposed massing and scale were sympathetic to the local context.  The green ceramic tile proposed for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 564.

PROPOSAL:  Conversion of dwelling into three flats; first floor side extension; single storey rear extension; single storey front infill extension; external alterations; bin and cycle stores

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

·                     the floorspace and width of the first floor flat complied with the minimum requirements of the London Plan;

·                     currently the property was a single family dwelling house with a single parking space and there would be no changes to this provision.  The parking allocated at the proposed development was within London Plan guidelines.  Additionally, the width of the space at the front of the property would not accommodate  additional parking spaces.  The limited parking provision was in keeping with the Mayor of London’s plans to encourage modal shift in London through the use of more sustainable forms of transport.

The Committee received representations from an objector, Mr Western and from, Mr Modi, the applicant.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

‘The proposal is an over-development and over-intensive use of the site, with insufficient parking provision, and which fails to meet minimum bedroom and storage space standards, to the detriment of local character and the amenities of neighbours and future occupiers, contrary to policies DM1 and DM42 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy, and 3.5C, 6.13, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan.’

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

DECISION:  GRANTED

(1)          planning permission subject to the Conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the officer report, and as amended by the Addendums.

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 and Anne Whitehead voted for the application.

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

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

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.

RECOMMENDATION B

That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 21st of June 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: Redevelopment to provide two storey office building (Class B1); Parking; Refuse storage

Following questions and comments from Members, an officer advised that condition 9 sought to restrict any future permitted development rights associated with the application.

DECISION:  GRANTED,

planning permission subject to the Conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the officer report, and as amended by the Addendums and the Supplemental Agenda.

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

PROPOSAL: Three and four storey side extension from first floor level to provide 7 flats; Refuse and cycle storage.

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 Addendums.

RECOMMENDATION B

That if, by 24th April 2018 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by the Divisional Director of Planning, the section 106 Planning Obligation is not completed, then delegate the decision to the Divisional Director of Planning to REFUSE planning permission for the appropriate reason.

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

PROPOSAL: Re-Development To Provide A Two Storey Building For Six Flats; Parking; Landscaping; Separate And Communal Amenity Space; Bin /

Cycle Storage

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

·                     Condition 10 required the applicant to submit a landscape and  management plan;

·                     the proposal currently showed the refuse storage in a container near the front of the site.  Condition 6 required the applicant to submit further details regarding this;

·                     the number of parking and cycle spaces proposed at the site was compliant with the requirements of the London Plan and the site was located within a PTAL 3.

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

1.            The proposed building, by reason of its excessive scale, bulk and massing would give rise to a form of development which would be disproportionate, incongruous and overly dominant, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the streetscene, and the visual amenities of the area, contrary to policies 7.4 B and 7.6.B of The London Plan 2016, policies CS1.B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013 and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide 2010;

2.            The proposed redevelopment to six flats would be an over-intensive use of the site, and would have an insufficient level of parking provision, to the detriment of local character and amenity, contrary to policies DM1 and DM42 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 additional condition below agreed by the Committee:

The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied until a scheme for the on-going management and maintenance of all the hard and soft landscaping within the development, to include a Landscape Management Plan, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules to include details of the arrangement for the implementation for all landscape areas including the communal residential garden (other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens), shall be submitted to, and approved in writing,  by the local planning authority.  Details shall also include schedule of landscape maintenance for year 1, years 2-5 and on-going maintenance from year 6 onwards.  The Landscape Management Plan shall be carried out in a timely manner as approved.

REASON:  To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the appearance of the development, and to ensure that the development makes provision for hard and soft landscaping which contributes to the creation of a high quality, accessible, safe and attractive communal garden.

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 and Anne Whitehead voted for the application.

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