Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)            to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)          where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)         the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)         if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no Reserve Members in attendance.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)          all Members of the Panel;

(b)          all other Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that the Declarations of Interests published in advance of the meeting on the Council’s website were taken as read and no further interests were declared.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2020 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2020 be taken as read and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

Minute 65 – Presentation on Vaughan Road Car Park, West Harrow

First sentence, last paragraph to read

A Member questioned the Chair in terms of his attendance at the Panel for the discussion on this particular development proposal and why he had not declared a disclosable pecuniary interest, because he had declared the same in respect of his association with Dandi Living at two previous Planning Committee meetings.

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 29 October 2020.  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.

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 no petitions had been received.

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

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received at this meeting under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 48 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

To receive a presentation from the applicants, Barratts

Members receive a presentation on the Harrow View East development from the developer, Barratts.

The developer outlined the context of the former Kodak site, which had been a presence for 125 years, the extent of the site, showed images of the planned appearance, described the size and massing of the site and the key design features.  The developer summarised the proposed changes to plot C1 which included an additional 110 homes and an alteration of building heights.

In terms of plot B1, the developer outlined the benefits of the scheme which  proposed an increase in height of a single story and created 14 additional homes and a playspace.  He advised that there would be 0.3 car park spaces per dwelling and that it was expected that the majority of residents would not own a car.

A Member expressed frustration as to why the developers had failed to listen to Members and continued to propose developments of such height and density on this site as it was having a negative impact on what would be a good housing scheme.  He questioned the sense and purpose of the Green Lane if the site was to be dominated by such a large building with the resultant impact on light and air quality.  He added that, in his view, the proposed development would need to be demolished in 20-30 years as unsuitable.

In response, the developer stated that Barratts were building high quality homes that met all industry standards and that those residents that had moved in were happy with their new homes.  Harrow had a large housing target to meet and Barratts were building to address this need, with a modest increase in scale, and working to produce good quality homes.

In response to a Member’s questions, the developer advised:

·                     a smaller scale supermarket was proposed for the site which would be open for local provisions and could be open for extended hours;

·                     there would be less car parking available to discourage car ownership. Early indications from the current occupiers was that they accepted the vehicular constraints.  The section 106 agreement prevented residents from applying for a parking permit but there may be a car club on the development.

A Member urged caution in that the resulting development may be too vast and not live up to expectations.  She expressed the view that people may not feel that they were at home in a development of such height and scale.  She suggested the reason for Members’ concerns were as a result of the clear presentation and explanation provided by the developer.  In response, Members were invited to have a tour of the first phase of the development so that they could see the space.  The Chair requested that this be facilitated by the Chief Planning Officer.

The Chair thanked the presenters for their attendance.

RESOLVED:  That the presentation be noted.

To receive a presentation from the applicants, MML Investments Ltd.

Members received a presentation on the proposed developpment on the land to the rear of 171-255 Pinner Road, Harrow from the developers, MML Investments Ltd.

Members were informed that the proposal was for a residential scheme of 46 dwellings.  The scheme was still in the early stages of development but there would be a full detailed planning application to Council.  During the presentation, the developer outlined the constraints and opportunities of the site, site layout, the materials to be used and the schedule of units which would be to a maximum of 5 storeys.  He also advised that both sustainability and response to climate change were also considerations.  In terms of parking, it was likely that there would be a ratio of 0.4 spaces per dwelling, that is, 18-19 car park spaces on the site.

In response to a Member’s questions, the Panel was advised that:-

·                     In terms of social housing, although plans were in the early stage, two blocks would have a mixture of affordable housing for sale and rent;

·                     The impact on the residents’ gardens in Pinner Road was a key planning issue.  The developers were seeking to ensure that there was no adverse effect and no habitable room would face the back of the Pinner Road properties.  Further, the Panel was advised that the development could be increased by 2 storeys but it was not appropriate for the site;

·                     The reasoning behind not providing family houses was to maintain as much of the existing landscaping as possible and to minimise the footprint.

The Chair thanked the presenters for their attendance.

RESOLVED:  That the presentation be noted.

No updates were received.

Members were invited to send suggestions for future topics and presentations to the Interim Chief Planning Officer.