Agenda and minutes

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

RESOLVED: To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:

To receive declarations of personal and prejudicial interests (if any) from Members of the Committee arising from the business to be transacted at this agenda.

RESOLVED: To note the following declarations of interests arising from the business to be transacted at this meeting:

(i)                 Items 1/04, 1/05 and 1/06 – North London Collegiate School, 90 Canons Drive, Edgware

Councillor Idaikkadar declared a personal interest in the above applications arising from the fact that his daughter attended the North London Collegiate School.  He chose to leave the room and took no part in the discussion or voting on these items.

(ii)               Item 2/06 – Peterborough and St Margaret’s School, Common Road, Stanmore

Councillor Marilyn Ashton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the above application, which was subsequently deferred from consideration and determination at the meeting.

(iii)             Item 2/16 – 102 High Street, Harrow-on-the-Hill (Park House)

Councillor Marilyn Ashton stated that she had spoken to the Borough Solicitor regarding the position of the Conservative Group Members on this Committee in relation to the above application which had been submitted by a relative of a Member of the Conservative Group.  She mentioned that the advice received from the Borough Solicitor was that the Members’ Planning Protocol stated that where the matter under consideration related, for example, to land owned by a Member’s relative, Members of the same political party should not consider themselves to have a prejudicial interest.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton declared a personal interest on behalf of the Conservative Group Members on the Committee but sought further legal advice on the contents of the letter sent to her by the Borough Solicitor.

The Council’s legal representative at the meeting responded that it was for each individual Member to make up his/her own mind on whether he/she had a prejudicial interest by applying the public perception rule i.e. where a Member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton stated that she did not consider herself as having a prejudicial interest in this item.   Councillor Mrs Bath stated that she would be leaving the room during consideration and determination of this application.  She was of the view that she had personal and prejudicial interests on this application.  Accordingly, she left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting on this item.

Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Billson, Kara and Mrs Joyce Nickolay remained and took part in the voting and discussion on this item.

(iv)              Item 2/08 – 24 Uxbridge Road, Stanmore 

Councillor Marilyn Ashton queried if Members of the Labour Group were prejudiced by virtue of the comments made by the local MP on the above application in which he appeared to have taken sides.  In this case they should leave the room.  Councillor Marilyn Ashton sought the advice of the Council’s legal representative present at the meeting.

In response, the Council’s legal representative stated that

·        a Member must declare personal interest if the decision might reasonably be regarded as affecting, to a greater extent than other Council Tax  ...  view the full minutes text for item 418.

RESOLVED:  That in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 4.1, Councillors John Cowan and Navin Shah, who are not Members of the Committee, be allowed to speak on items 2/01 and 20 respectively.

(a)  To consider whether any item included on the agenda should be considered with the press and public excluded because it contains confidential information as defined in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985;

(b)  to receive the addendum sheets and to note any applications which are recommended for deferral or have been withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant.

RESOLVED: That (1) in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the following items be admitted to the agenda by reason of the special circumstances and grounds for urgency stated:

[Note:  That in admitting the addendum to the agenda, (i) Members agreed that agenda item 2/06 – Peterborough & St Margaret’s School, Common Road, Stanmore – be deferred for the reasons set out in the addendum report.

(ii)  Councillor Mrs Ashton stated that agenda item 2/10 – 105 Whitchurch Lane, Edgware – not be deferred.  She was of the view that sufficient information was available that evening to consider and determine the planning application.  She was of the view that the reason, as set out in the addendum, did not warrant a deferral at the meeting.

In response, the Chair stated that the UDP Advisory Panel was due to consider the policy on conversion and therefore consideration of the application ought to be deferred.

Councillor Ashton stated that the Council had an existing policy under which the application could be considered that evening.  She added that the Inspector had not agreed with a number of issues and not just on the policy on conversion.

The Chair moved that the application be deferred and upon being seconded and put to a vote, it was agreed that consideration of the application be deferred at the request of the officers in order to take account of the decision of the UDP Advisory Panel in relation to the Inspector’s recommendations, in particular the policy on conversion.]

(2)  items 21 (3 Kenton Avenue, Harrow) and 22 (8 Kenton Road, Harrow) be considered with the press and public excluded because they contained confidential information as defined in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985;

(3)  that apart from items 21 and 22, all remaining items be considered with the press and public present.

That it be agreed that, having been circulated, the Chair be given authority to sign the minutes of the meetings held on 10 September 2003 and 15 October 2003 as correct records of those meetings, once they have been printed in the Council Bound Minute Volume.

RESOLVED: (1) That, having been circulated, the minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2003 be signed as a correct record of that meting subject to the following amendments:

Minute No. 383  (Item 1/05 – Enterprise House, 15 St John’s Road, Harrow – in the schedule) – para (1)(i) , line 2 to read ‘and dedication of that element of the service road within the site to the ...’

Minute No.383 (Item 2/08 – Timbers, 41 Brookshill, Harrow Weald - in the schedule)  to include ‘That officers be requested to report back on the number of traffic accidents that had taken place at this site’.

 [Note: The above amendments are in addition to the following amendments made to the 10 September minutes at the 15 October 2003 meeting of the Committee:

It was noted that Councillor Arnold should be listed as the fourth Reserve member rather than the first Reserve Member and it was also noted that the second line of minute 379 should be amended to refer to ‘2 Kenton Road, 8 Kenton Road and 3 Kenton Avenue’ rather than ‘2 Kenton Road, 9 Kenton Road and 3 Kenton Avenue’.]

(2)  that, having been circulated (but not yet bound in the Volume), the minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2003 be signed as a correct record of that meeting.

[Note: During (2) above, Councillor Marilyn Ashton referred to Minute 402 – Item 2/09, 99 Stanmore Hill, Stanmore – and stated that the application had been deferred on the basis that the application would be submitted to the 5 November meeting (i.e. that evening).  She was concerned that this had not been minuted.  She added that had she known that the application would not be before the meeting that evening, she would not have supported a deferral.

In response, the Chair stated this understanding was on the basis that there were no other additional problems that needed to be resolved.   She further added that minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings of a meeting and stated that further discussions on 99 Stanmore Hill should take place under item 20, details of which had been reported in the Addendum report.

Councillor Mrs Bath stated that the discussion at the meeting on 15 October 2003 had included concerns on the implications of ‘non-determination’ of the application and that, at the time, she had been informed that Members would have only 3 weeks to wait in order to determine the application]. 

(Also see Minute 437(i)).

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 18 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED: To note that there were no public questions to be received at this meeting under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 18.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors.

RESOLVED: To note that no petitions were presented at the meeting.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 16 (Part 4B) of the Constitution.

RESOLVED: To note that there were no deputations to be received at this meeting under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 16 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

To receive references from Council and any other Committees or Panels (if any).

RESOLVED: To note that there were no references from Council or other Committees or Panels to be received at this meeting.

To confirm whether representations are to be received, under Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution), from objectors and applicants regarding planning applications on the agenda.

RESOLVED: That, in accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution), representations from Members of the public be received in respect of items 1/04 (including 1/05 and 1/06), 2/01 and 2/08 on the list of planning applications.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer (circulated separately).

RESOLVED: That authority be given to the Chief Planning Officer to issue the decision notices in respect of the planning applications considered, as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

RESOLVED: That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1)                 make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 672, Headstone Lane Sports Club (No. 2), Headstone Lane, North Harrow, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer’s report; and      

(2)                 revoke TPO 619 Headstone Lane Sports Club (No. 1), Headstone Lane, North Harrow on confirmation of the above TPO.

(REASON: To accord with current policy as set out in paragraph 6.2 of the officer’s report.)

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

RESOLVED: That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1)                 make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 673, Love Lane (No. 5), Pinner, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer’s report; and

(2)                 revoke TPO 599, Love Lane (No. 3), Pinner on confirmation of the above TPO.

(REASON: To accord with current policy as set out in paragraph 6.2 of the officer’s report.)

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

RESOLVED: That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1)                 make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 676, Culverlands Close (No. 2), Stanmore Park, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer’s report; and

(2)                 revoke TPO 15, ‘Culverlands’, Green Lane, Stanmore on confirmation of the above TPO.

(REASON: To accord with current policy as set out in paragraph 6.2 of the officer’s report.)

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1)                 make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 678, Uxbridge Road (No.39), Harrow Weald, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer’s report; and

(2)                 revoke TPO 309 Uxbridge Road (No.19), Harrow Weald on confirmation of the above TPO.

(REASON: To accord with current policy as set out in paragraph 6.2 of the officer’s report.)

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1)                 make a new Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to be known as TPO 680, West Drive (No.4), Harrow Weald, pursuant to Sections 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to protect those trees identified on the map and schedule attached to the officer’s report; and

(2)                 revoke TPO 10, Area 32 on confirmation of the above TPO.

(REASON: To accord with current policy as set out in paragraph 6.2 of the officer’s report.)

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

FOR INFORMATION  

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer which linked those appeals being dealt with, those awaiting decisions and those (since 1 August 2003) where decisions had been made.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

FOR INFORMATION

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer which listed those enforcement notices awaiting compliance.  Members noted the comments made in relation to 93 Stanmore Hill.

The Chair requested that a copy of the appeal decision in respect of East End Farm be sent to all Members of the Committee, as some Members appeared not to have received it.

(if any).

RESOLVED: To note that there were no telecommunications applications which required consideration.

(if any).

RESOLVED: To note that there were no demolition applications which required consideration.

(which the Chair has decided is urgent and cannot otherwise be dealt with).

(i)                   Item placed on the agenda further to a request from a Member of the Committee – 99 Stanmore Hill

            (Also see Minute 421)

            Councillor Marilyn Ashton expressed regret that she had to bring this matter up that evening under ‘Any Other Business’.  She added that when the application was deferred at the meeting on 15 October 2003, it was on the understanding that it would not take very long before it was submitted to the Committee again and pointed out that it was outrageous that the Committee had not determined this application.

            She mentioned that she had learnt that there was a difference of opinion, between the planning officers, on this application and that, therefore, the Committee would have to wait until the December meeting to consider and determine the application.  She reiterated that had she known this, she would not have supported the previous deferral.

            Councillor Marilyn Ashton also mentioned that she had spoken to the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development, Housing and Best Value in respect of this matter.  She enquired why there had been a delay in resubmitting the application.

            In response, the Development Control Manager stated that the delay had been due to a number of factors, which were as follows:

·                     that officers were seeking amendments to the proposal and were expecting to receive these before the December Committee meeting;

·                     that officers had wanted to discuss the amendments with the applicant;

·                     that local residents would have to be renotified of the amendments.

The Chair stated that she was satisfied that the application would be resubmitted to the next meeting or the next appropriate meeting of the Committee.

            Councillor Marilyn Ashton referred to a letter from the Executive Director (Urban Living) dated 20 October 2003, addressed to an objector.  She read out a paragraph from that letter, which had been sent out 5 days after the October Development Control Committee meeting, and therefore she could not understand why there had been a delay in re-submitting the application for Members’ consideration.

            She was of the view that to keep both the objectors and the applicant waiting was an infringement of their human rights.  She was also concerned that there was disagreement between officers about this application.

            The Development Control Manager stated that he had had discussions with the case officer for this application and confirmed that revised plans and amendments to the side and rear elevations had not yet been received.  In response to a question from Councillor Mrs Bath, he stated that should the applicant appeal against non?determination of this application, the applicant could submit revised plans to the Inspector for consideration.  He mentioned that the existing application would be re?submitted to the December meeting of the Committee, if the revised plans had not been received.

            Finally, the Chair stated that it was up to the applicant to re-submit a revised application and that no promises or guarantees could be made by officers.

(ii)                 Members’ Site Visit to Doctors’ Surgery, William Drive, Stanmore

            Following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 437.

Joint Report of the Borough Solicitor and Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a confidential report from the Chief Planning Officer.

RESOLVED:  That the Chief Planning Officer be requested to contact the owner of the property to negotiate the submission of a planning application for an appropriate form of residential use of the property.

Reason for decision:  As set out in paragraph 10 of the officer’s report.

Joint Report of the Borough Solicitor and Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a confidential report from the Chief Planning Officer.

RESOLVED: That the Chief Planning Officer be requested to contact the owner of the property to negotiate the submission of a planning application for an appropriate form of residential use of the property.

Reason for Decision:  As set out in paragraph 10 of the officer’s report.

In accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 14 (Part 4B of the Constitution) it was

RESOLVED:  At (1) 10.00 pm to continue until 10.30 pm;

(2)  10.30 pm to continue until 11.00 pm;

(3)  11.00 pm to continue until 11.05 pm;

(4)  11.05 pm to continue until 11.10 pm.