Agenda and minutes

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

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda items 8, 9 and 10 – Presentations on 265 The Ridgeway, Harrow; Car Park Rear of Canons Park Station; Rayners Lane Station Car Park; and Stanmore Station Car Park

Councillor Stephen Greek declared a non?pecuniary interest in that he was employed by the London Assembly.  He would remain in the room whilst the proposals were being presented and discussed.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2019 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2019, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive any public questions received in accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 49 (Part 4D 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 if 3.00 pm, Thursday 14 November 2019.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk

No person may submit more than one question].

To note that one public question (followed by a supplementary question) had been received and responded to and in line with the statement made by the Chair, the recording had been placed on the website.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 47 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that the following petition had been received:

Petition – 265 The Ridgeway, Harrow, HA2 7DA

A petition, signed by over 1100 people, was submitted objecting to the proposed development of 265 The Ridgeway, Harrow, HA2 7DA on the grounds that it was not in keeping in an area of three bedroom houses and maisonettes.

RESOLVED:  That the petition be received and referred to the Corporate Director, Community for a response.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 48 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

To receive a presentation from Harrow Gospel Hall Trust on proposals for the development of the site.

The Panel received a presentation from Harrow Gospel Hall Trust on proposals to develop the site at 265, The Ridgeway, Harrow, HA2 7DA.

Following the presentation, the presenters responded to a number of questions from Members as follows:

·                     retaining the Doctor’s Surgery currently on the site was being discussed with the Health Service to identify its need;

·                     surveys and discussions were taking place with the Highways Authority to determine the exact number of parking spaces on site but it was unlikely that the proposal to provide 78 spaces would be significantly increased as this would impact on the amount of green space to be made available;

·                     entering into a Section 106 Agreement to consult on creating a CPZ in the locality remained a possibility;

·                     the possibility of providing a public footpath within the site to the Station was being considered; and

·                     electric charging posts would be installed to meet the minimum requirement to provide 20% but additional posts would be provided  subject to demand.

Members made a number of comments on the proposal as follows:

·                     the number of parking spaces to be provided on site was unrealistic and the implications for parking in the surrounding area had not been adequately addressed;

·                     whilst the proposal had some merits, the height of the proposed buildings was out of character with the area and density was a cause for concern;

·                     the number of charging posts to be provided at the outset was unlikely to meet demand;

·                     the traffic impact on The Ridgeway had not been adequately assessed and mitigating measures identified;

·                     the impact of pedestrians accessing the already narrow footpath, particularly by people with a disability, had not been adequately addressed; and

·                     the importance of establishing the need for a Doctor’s Surgery on site to avoid overprovision mindful of other surgeries in the locality.

The Chair thanked the presenters for their attendance, presentation and responses.

To receive a presentation on proposals for the development on land at Canons Park Station car park from Catalyst Housing Group and Transport for London.

(To facilitate a continuous presentation items 41, 42 and 43 were taken together.)

At the meeting on 10 July 2019 the Panel had received presentations from Catalyst and Transport for London on the proposed developments on Stanmore, Canons Park and Rayners Lane Stations car parks.

The Panel now received a further presentation on these proposed developments.

Following the presentation the presenters responded to the Panel’s questions and comments as follows:

·                     providing step free access at  Rayners Lane Station had been considered but t//he costs were prohibitive;

·                     the housing mix had been the subject of  discussion with the Council’s Housing Team

·                     following consultation carried out by TfL on bus routes the service from Stanmore Station would be improved;

·                     the surveys on usage of the carparks had been carried out in early June and the results would be reviewed.

Before making specific comments on the proposals a number of Members expressed disappointment that the concerns noted at the meeting on 10 July 2019 had not been addressed and Councillor Marilyn Ashton asked for her particular disappointment to be recorded in the minutes.

The following specific comments were noted:

·                     providing step free access at Rayners Lane Station should be revisited having regard to the solution used at Headstone Lane Station;

·                     the block of flats on Donnerfield Road fronting the sites were not typical of the area and should not be used to set the context  for the new buildings;

·                     the materials of Canons Park Station were not attractive;

·                     the proposal at Stanmore Station did not reflect the character of Kerry Conservation Area;

·                     the provision of a lift to Stanmore Station whilst welcome, it would be  preferable for it to be located at the station itself rather than in an adjacent building;

·                     the 11 storey landmark buildings on Stanmore Station site were heavy and tall;

·                     the buildings look the same and were not attractive and not in keeping with the local character;

·                     the proposal for all three developments to be car-free was unrealistic (how would it be enforced?), ignoring the reality that the bus routes were not reliable and that residents with cars would park in the surrounding area adding to the pressure for residents’ parking; and

·                     the projections from the surveys carried out on vehicle trips and the future usage of the three car parks were seriously flawed and not realistic.

The Chair thanked the presenters for their attendance, presentation and responses.

To receive a presentation on proposals for the development on land at Rayners Lane Station car park from Catalyst Housing Group and Transport for London.

See above.

To receive a presentation on proposals for the development on land at Stanmore Station car park from Catalyst Housing Group and Transport for London.

See above.

No updates were received.

RESOLVED:  That Members advise the Interim Chief Planning Officer of any suggestions for future topics and presentations.