Agenda and minutes

The Chair advised the public in attendance at the meeting that the purpose of the Panel was to receive presentations on development proposals and to make comments. There was no connection with the Planning Committee and any comments made by the Panel would not affect the deliberations of the Planning Committee.

To consider the appointment of a Vice-Chair to the Panel for the Municipal Year 2016/2017.

RESOLVED:  To appoint Councillor Susan Hall as Vice-Chair of the Panel for the 2016/2017 Municipal Year.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interest was declared:

Agenda Item 9 – Existing Civic Centre Site and New Civic Centre

Councillor Susan Hall declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she owned a business in Wealdstone.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 February 2016 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 February 2016, 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 notice of them was received and there be a time limit of 15 minutes.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, Monday 27 June 2016.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

To note that 3 public questions 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).

A petition opposing the new planning application at Harrow View West housing development was received, signed by 661 residents.

RESOLVED:  That the petition be referred to the Divisional Director of Regeneration and Planning and the Portfolio Holder for Business, Planning and Regeneration.

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received at the meeting.

To receive a presentation on Chichester Court (with Haslam House) by Harrow Regeneration/Housing and Stephen Taylor Architects.

The Panel received a presentation by Stephen Taylor Architects and Harrow officers on the development of Chichester Court. It was noted that as it was a live planning application, it was for information only.

It was noted that following public consultation in May 2015, including a comprehensive parking questionnaire, further consultation had taken place on the revised plans.

RESOLVED:  That the presentation be noted.

To receive a presentation on the existing Civic Centre site and new Civic Centre by Harrow Regeneration Unit and Stephen Taylor Architects

The Panel received a presentation from Stephen Taylor Architects on the initial consideration of the redevelopment plans for the existing Civic Centre site.

It was noted that a Special meeting of the Panel would be held to consider the design masterplan.

RESOLVED:  That the presentation be noted.

To receive a presentation on Harrow View West by Persimmon Homes

The Panel received a presentation from Persimmon Homes on development proposals for the Harrow View West development.  It was noted that the proposals for the site had been modified subsequent to feedback from the Panel at its meeting on 29 February 2016.

The key amendment since the last Panel meeting was a reduction in height to a maximum of four storeys, a reduction in the number of units and alterations to the amenity areas.  The consented scheme was for 247 houses and 67 flats, the enhanced proposal submitted to the last meeting was for 116 houses and 480 flats and the current scheme for x houses and x flats.  Parking provision had been reduced from 1.44 per dwelling to 0.77.  The aim was to submit a planning application in July 2016.

In response to questions from Members it was stated that:

·                     the balance between parking and amenity had been based on research that indicated that smaller units in London did not use cars.  Discussions were taking place with the Council regarding control of overspill parking.  The assessment regarding the demand for cars had been tested by officers and Transport for London (TfL);

·                     the assessment as to the size of accommodation to be provided had been taken from a marketing perspective.  90% of the expressions of interest received had been for one and 2 bedroom accommodation.  The level of affordability, including the £600k ceiling for help to buy, had also been a factor.  The expression of interest in one and two bedroom  properties could include key workers;

·                     the dwelling standards met the London Plan minimum standards.  The aim was to make the ground floor environment welcoming;

·                     the detail was not yet available to enable calculation of the figures for affordable housing.  Affordability was part of the emerging policy of the new Mayor of London.  The developer was not currently marketing any of the smaller dwellings;

·                     a planning application for the revised scheme had not yet been submitted.  When it was submitted it would include a full viability assessment;

·                     although discussions had taken place with Council officers, there had not been any influence exerted as to the scheme detail.

The Chair drew attention to the following:

·                     with regard to the provision of school places, the masterplan formulated when Land Securities owned both sites had been of sufficient size to warrant a primary school;

·                     there was a requirement for consultation with statutory bodies prior to the officer recommendation on a submitted planning application, such as implications for flooding;

·                     all affected households would be advised of the submission of a major planning application;

·                     a presentation would be made to the next meeting on the housing needs analysis for Harrow.

The Chair thanked the developer for their presentation and stated that the meeting had raised awareness of the views of local residents.

RESOLVED:  That the presentation be noted.

The Divisional Director of Planning and Regeneration updated the Panel on the major development projects in Harrow which provided summary data on each scheme.

RESOLVED:  That the information be noted.

RESOLVED:  That  reports be submitted on:

1.            the design masterplan for the current Civic Centre site;

2.            the housing needs analysis.