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

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 following interest was declared:

Agenda Items 7 – Harrow Town Centre Public Realm Project, 9 – COLART: Pre Application Presentation and 10 – Update on Various Projects

Councillor Susan Hall declared a non pecuniary interest in that she had a business in Wealdstone.  She would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The Chairman advised the Panel that there was an error in the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2012 circulated on the agenda.  The correct version of the minutes had been circulated by email to Members of the Panel.

The Chairman explained that Minutes 91 to 93 had been replaced with anomalous text and that the Minutes should read:

“91. Minutes - ‘RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 March 2012, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

92. Terms of Reference of the Major Developments Panel – The Panel received its Terms of Reference, which were for noting.

RESOLVED:  That the terms of reference for the Major Developments Panel be noted and confirmed.

93. Public Questions, Petitions, Deputations – RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting.”

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2012, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents or organisations under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 51 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting.

Report of the Corporate Director, Place Shaping.

The Panel received a report which updated Members on the outcome of the officer review of the Major Developments Panel (MDP) and sought the Panel’s views on the proposed new role of the Panel, to enable it to reflect changes in the Council’s approach to supporting growth and regeneration in the future.

The Chairman reported that the view of the Local Development Framework (LDF) Panel was that the two Panels should not be merged but that the LDF Panel should be removed from the calendar of meetings and that meetings be arranged as and when they were required to consider matters such as the Annual Monitoring Report and the West London Waste Plan.  The role of the MDP would nevertheless expand to consider the Local Infrastructure Plan, as the focus of the LDF was planning policy. 

During the discussion, Members raised the following points:

·                    the proposal from the LDF Panel involved a transfer of activities;

·                    the Local Infrastructure Plan had not been considered by the LDF Panel and therefore it was not being transferred to the MDP;

·                    it would have been useful to have the minutes from the LDF Panel tabled;

·                    the membership of the MDP could be increased by one for each political group and then the Panels merged;

·                    there was a fundamental difference between the work of the MDP and the LDF Panel.  The LDF Panel considered policies, whilst the MDP considered development aspects.  There were changes to Government policies and the Mayor of London reviewed plans which would need to be considered;

·                    there was a need to reduce costs associated with meetings and it would be for Cabinet to recreate a Panel if it was deemed necessary;

·                    the comments and recommendations of each Panel should be considered by Cabinet. 

The Divisional Director of Planning advised that the recommendation of the LDF Panel had been unanimous.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Cabinet)

That the comments of the Panel be reported to Cabinet for consideration.

RESOLVED:  That a further report on the proposed merger of the Major Development Panel and the Local Development Framework Panel be included on the agenda for the next meeting.  

To receive a presentation.

The Divisional Director of Planning introduced Michael Lowndes of Turley Associates, Gregg Penoyre of Penoyre and Prasad and Anthony Bowen of Linden Gruppen.

The Panel received a powerpoint presentation which provided information on the history of the COLART site, the vision and aims of the project, the planning framework, the concept, the viability of the project and the illustrative scheme.  The proposals were for a new development with a mix of uses, including residential, employment, offices and education.  It was proposed to retain the existing office building on the site, the ground floor of the building would be converted into artist’s studios and the upper floors would be used for employment.  A parcel of land on the site would be sold to the Salvatorian College to allow an expansion of their facilities. 

The site would include public spaces at the centre and at both the north and south ends of the site.  Vehicle access would be provided from existing access points but there would be no access through to Whitefriars Ave for vehicular traffic.  It was explained that the buildings would be three storeys around the perimeter of the site and rise to five storeys, in places, at the centre.  The current proposal for the site was to create 152 employment spaces, with 112 being located in the refurbished office building and 40 at the south end of the site in a new building. 

The key to the employment model was the artist studios. The owners were in discussion with a specialist provider of such space called ACAVA, an educational charity.  The applicants were seeking to lease the studios space to ACAVA for ten years at affordable rents.  There would be 179 residential units with between 10-12% being social provision.  It was unlikely that the streets would be adopted and therefore there would need to be a perpetual management plan in place.  It was proposed that the streets and the central square be landscaped and available for use by residents and those who worked on the new development.  The public would be able to walk through the development and it would be accessible for cyclists.

The representatives advised that the scheme had been amended following consultation and that the main concerns expressed had related to parking as the site would provide 97 spaces, security and the impact of the density of the development. 

Following the presentation, Members asked questions and made comments which were responded to as follows;

·                    the site had good access to transport links and was located near to a station.  The proposed provision of 0.6 car parking spaces per dwelling would meet the required standard but consideration would be given to Members concerns that this was inadequate;

·                    at present there were not any artist studios in north west London, they were all located in central or eastern London.  ACAVA had been running studios for many years and they were confident that there would be a demand for them.  The ground floor of the converted office building would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

To receive an officer presentation.

The Panel received a presentation from an officer which outlined various elements of the key infrastructure project and the funding sources for the projects.  It was hoped that the public realm project would act as a catalyst for future inward investment. 

The officer reported on the context and plans for each of the individual projects at St Ann’s Road/Havelock Place, Lowlands Recreation Ground, Neptune Point, St John’s Square and College Road.

A Member of Panel questioned the additional cost of £600,000 for the Harrow Town Centre Public Realm Project and whether a contingency was included in the total.  The Member expressed concerns about the additional costs in light of the current budgetary and financial situation.  The Chairman responded that over the last year there had been consultation and discussions at the project board which had resulted in the decision that £1.4 million was not sufficient for the project.  The project had been re-priced, various elements had been added and removed and an extra allocation had been requested.  There was a contingency of 15%.

Following the presentation, Members made the following comments;

·                    there were concerns about the future maintenance costs of the works;

·                    it was not practical to locate benches next to trees;

·                    the problems the project aimed to address were difficult and the efforts should be applauded;

·                    there had been project board meetings and discussions with the environmental officers with regard to maintenance costs.  One of the reasons for the increase in the cost of the works was that granite paving which could be cleaned using a steam cleaner had been included.  There would be training for staff on how to use the new cleaning machines;

·                    the base of the trees would have a bonded infill rather than a grid which help to prevent rubbish collecting around them;

·                    there were safety concerns regarding the proposed wooded area at Lowlands Recreation Ground.

·                    the Police were not represented on the project board but there had been discussions with them regarding Lowlands Recreation Ground and the site for the playground in the south east corner;

·                    the capital spend of the project would help to attract people to the town centre and increase the footfall in shops.  It was important to ensure that the Council’s capital programme supported the regeneration of the town centre;

·                    there should be access through St Ann’s shopping centre during the evening.  An access route, other than an alleyway, from the station to St Ann’s Road would help to support the viability of the Harrow economy;

·                    there were revenue constraints which should be considered in relation to capital spend on projects;

·                    it was anticipated that the performance space at Lowlands Recreation Ground would generate revenue;

·                    discussions were being held with the management of St Ann’s Shopping Centre regarding the entrance and exit layout of the car park;

·                    how would the proposed facilities at Lowlands Recreation Ground be protected from vandalism;

·                    the protection of the facilities would be the responsibility of the Police.  It was hoped that interesting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

Report of the Corporate Director of Place Shaping.

The Panel received and considered a schedule which provided progress on various sites around the borough.

A Member asked about the ongoing charges, such as pavement rents and traffic lights, in relation to Bradstowe House.  In response, another Member advised that rent due was being recorded for the hoardings.

A Member drew attention to concentration of developments in certain areas in the borough, such as Whitchurch Playing Field, Stanmore Place and Stanburn School and asked that the impact of developments in a concentrated area be considered.  In response, it was advised that this would be included as an agenda item for the next meeting and that this matter be addressed with the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

RESOLVED:  That the content of the schedule of strategic sites be noted.

Members considered which items they would like to receive at their next meeting.  The officers undertook to report back on the revised terms of reference for the Panel together with a report on the impact of developments in north east Harrow.