Agenda and minutes
PDF 239 KBVenue: Virtual Meeting - Online. View directions
Contact: Alison Atherton, Senior Professional - Democratic Services Tel: 07825 726493 E-mail: alison.atherton@harrow.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Attendance by Reserve Members 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. Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED: To note that there were none. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest 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. Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED: To note that there were none. |
|
|
Resolved Items Additional documents: |
|
|
Presentation on the Byron Quarter To receive a presentation from Wates Additional documents: Minutes: Members received a presentation on Byron Quarter from the developer’s main architects, Sheppard Robson. The proposed development is by WatesGroup.
In making the presentation, it was reported that:
§ the development was a revised scheme, and would comprise of 360 new homes. These would be 50% affordable homes based on habitable rooms, and would allow the scheme to deliver additional larger family sized units; § the design would be for different types of family housing, with over 70% dual aspect apartment units on a typical floor; § around 65% family units would be 2-bedrooms and above; § the apartment sizes would be Nationally Described Space Standards sizes and above; § there would be 100 car parking spaces for residents, on a ratio of 0.3 and cycle parking spaces, plus a car club; § play space would be provided for children up to 15 years of age, as well as a space for 16- to 17-year-olds; § there would be a new public square, as well as new flexible commercial space; § the architecture of the development would reflect the local area; and § there would a public consultation at the Leisure Centre on Wednesday 8 December 2021, followed by an online consultation, as well as consultations with Ward Councillors.
Following the presentation, Members made comments and asked questions.
Clarification was sought as to the level of engagement with local residents. The Panel was advised that there had been initial liaison with residents, and public consultation were planned to begin on 8 December 2021. This would be followed with the creation of an online portal. Thereafter, Ward Councillors would be consulted, with feedback taken, leading to a further round of public consultations. The Member asked whether there was flexibility in receiving feedback to be included in future revisions of the development. It was advised that there would be.
In response to a Member’s question on the public transport accessibility level (PTAL) rating for the scheme, it was advised that it was between 3 and 4. The Member further queried on how many electric charging points would be provided. It was advised that there would be 20% electric charging points, which was policy compliant.
In response to a Member’s question, the developer clarified that 2 bedroomed units were considered to be family housing, in addition to units of 3 bedrooms and above.
The Member was concerned that having tall buildings on the edge of the park would impact on the park’s heritage. The developer advised that tall buildings would enhance the relationship between the development and the park, and that consultations with the Council would be undertaken to work out an appropriate siting if deemed necessary.
A Member went on to express the view that the height was excessive. The Member also expressed concerns on the limited number of car parking spaces, and requested if more could be considered. Furthermore, it was not a car free development and that there might be an issue with the number of resident car parking spaces. ... view the full minutes text for item 93. |