Venue: Virtual Meeting - Online. View directions
Contact: Alison Atherton, Senior Professional - Democratic Services Tel: 07825 726493 E-mail: email@example.com
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.
RESOLVED: To note that there were no Reserve Members in attendance.
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.
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.
Appointment of Vice-Chair
To consider the appointment of a Vice-Chair to the Major Developments Panel for the Municipal Year 2021/22.
RESOLVED: To appoint Councillor David Perry as Vice-Chair of the Major Developments Panel for the 2021/2022 Municipal Year.
Presentation on Plot S, Milton Road
To receive a presentation from the Planning agents.
The Panel received a presentation on the Plot S, Milton Road development from the architect - Sheppard Robson.
The architect outlined the context of the proposal, which sat on a prominent corner in close proximity to Harrow Central Mosque and Harrow Civic Centre, focusing on the layout, size, massing and emerging design of the site and showed images of the planned appearance and landscape proposals.
Plot S formed the first part of the emerging masterplan for Poets Corner and was expected to provide 100% affordable homes. Key elements of the proposal included an active frontage and retail space, use of traditional brickwork to complement the existing character of the surrounding buildings, optimised shared and private amenity space and a bike hub.
In the discussion which followed, Members asked questions which were responded to as follows:
· A Member commented on the size of the communal garden, which they felt was disproportionate in size compared to the number of people expected to occupy the building. Noting the proposals, a Member also commented on the safety aspect and expressed concern that if left open to the public it could draw in crowds and encourage anti-social behaviour. The developer responded, noting the following:
o at 75m the shared garden was deemed reasonably large and would provide an attractive open space for the residents, in addition to already existing private spaces in the form of balconies.
o the central amenity space would be gated but part of it was expected to be open to the public in order to provide access to the play area. It was noted that other properties in the area such Gayton Road, with similar open spaces, had not seen any issues with anti-social behaviour.
o maintenance would be retained and managed by Harrow Council.
· the height of the development, which ranged from 3 to 7 storeys, was Height set on the lower end imagine for Poets Corner and was in line with other tall buildings in the area.
· in response to a question about the size of the townhouse gardens, the developer explained that they were twice the size of the national described space standard and ranged between 20 to 24sqm for flats and 24-28sqm for townhouses.
· Plot S was located in a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) 4 and 5 area, which offered good access to public transport links. In line with the London Plan, it was envisioned as a car-free scheme and except for three disabled spaces there was no other parking built into the proposal. While concerns about potential overspill parking in the nearby area had been considered, the proposal was deemed acceptable and it was anticipated that future residents would not be eligible for a permit for the existing controlled parking arrangements.
· The brown roofs envisioned as part of the landscape proposals, would not be visible from a street level and would be hidden behind parapets, thereby minimising the risk of potential unsightly appearance.
· The development, which was compliant in terms of local housing needs, would ... view the full minutes text for item 81.