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.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2019 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2019 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 19 July 2019.  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 received.

RESOLVED: To note the receipt of a petition from the residents of Canons Park Conservation Area in relation to proposed works to a tree with a Tree Preservation Order in Canons Drive, Edgware, which was referred to the Corporate Director, Community for consideration.

RESOLVED:  To accept the Addendum and Supplemental Addendum.

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 2-04 on the list of planning applications.

PROPOSAL:  Single storey and first floor front extension; two storey side to rear extension incorporating undercroft; single storey rear extension; external alterations including creation of sunken patio area (demolition of conservatory) (amended development description).

The Committee resolved to approve the officer recommendations.

DECISION (Unanimous):  GRANT permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, as amended by the addendum, subject to conditions and informatives.

PROPOSAL:  Five storey rear extension with concealed clearstory windows to flat roof; basement; new roof to rear conservatory; balustrade at rear; reinstate lightwell; extension to lightwell; new glass canopy; steel handrail; new canopy to entrance; new external windows and doors; bin store; new terrace at rear; landscaping; retaining wall; steps; hardsurfacing; external alterations; dismantle and repair conservatory; new roof to rear conservatory; repair steps; repair walls; new gate and mesh fence; repair balcony; alterations to parapet; re-roof existing flat roof ; replace rooflights; repair windowsill; rebuild and alterations to chimney; remove flue; remove gate and doors.

The Committee resolved to approve the officer recommendations.

DECISION (Unanimous):  GRANT permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, as amended by the addendum, subject to conditions and informatives.

PROPOSAL:  Listed Building Consent: Five storey rear extension with concealed clearstory windows to flat roof; replacement roof to rear conservatory; balustrade at rear; reinstate lightwell; extension to lightwell; new glass canopy; steel handrail; new canopy to entrance; new windows and doors; bin store; new terrace at rear; landscaping; retaining wall; steps; hardsurfacing; internal and external alterations; repairs to conservatory and steps.

The Committee resolved to approve the officer recommendations.

DECISION (Unanimous):  GRANT permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to conditions and informatives.

PROPOSAL:  Upgrading and regrading of existing sports pitches to create four natural grass pitches and one 3G synthetic pitch with floodlights and associated landscaping and security fencing (4.5m high ball stop fence and 1.2m-2m high pitch perimeter barrier), storage container and two team dugouts.

The officer verbally reported additional conditions attached to the planning application as follows: -

Page 142 Condition 4 to read ‘The floodlighting shall only be used between:-

0800 and 20.30’;

Page 143 Condition 6 to read ‘No floodlighting or other forms of external lighting, other than those shown on the approved plans,’;

Page 143 Condition 7 – delete as it was a duplication;

Page 143 Condition 8 – amend hours of approved lighting to be consistent with the athletics track ie to read 08.00 and 20.30;

Page 143 Condition 9 – delete as it was a duplication;

Page 144 Condition 10 – to read ‘Prior to the use of the new pitches, an Event Management Plan shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing, covering how travel arrangements, in particular parking for large scale events would be managed. The site shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved details of the Event Management Plan.’

The Committee received representations from an objector, Brian Stoker, and from a representative of the applicant, Scott Cranfield.

A Member sought clarification as to the proposal for parking at the site and questioned how a decision could be made without all of the relevant information.  The officer advised that a separate application had been submitted to address overspill parking and that the application before Members had been submitted at this time as funding had been secured from the Football Association; this was in the sum of approximately £400,000.  If the plans were revised, there would be consultation but concerns could be addressed through the use of conditions.  It was not possible to prevent a property transaction by the use of a planning condition.

A Member expressed the view that the expected funding from the Football Association should not be jeopardised.  In response to a Member’s question, the officer advised that the requirements had been met in terms of funding.

A Member proposed a deferral of the application on the following grounds:

There were uncertainties in terms of parking and consideration of the application should be deferred until the application in relation to overspill parking was before Members so that both applications could be considered together.

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

A Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

There is a lack of sufficient information to demonstrate that the parking impacts of this application can be mitigated to an acceptable level, to avoid unacceptable harm to local residential amenity, contrary to policies DM1, DM42, DM43, DM46 and DM48 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy, and 6.13 of the London Plan.

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

The Committee resolved to approve the officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 226.

RESOLVED:  To note that there was no urgent business.

The audio recording of this meeting can be found at the following link:

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1001&MId=64638