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 Member:-

RESOLVED: That, in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 4.1, Councillors Mrs Kinnear and Ray, who are not Members of the Committee, be allowed to speak on Agenda  Item 28: 102 High Street, Harrow on the Hill Installation of a Mobile Phone Base Station on Roof and Planning Application 2/14 respectively.

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 interest arising from the business to be transacted at this meeting:

(i)                   Agenda Item  28 – 102 High Street

Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Janet Cowan, Knowles and Mrs Joyce Nickolay declared a prejudicial interest in the above agenda item arising from the fact that a relation of a Member of the Conservative Group owned the above property. They advised that they would remain in the room for the duration of the deputations on this item, but would not ask questions of the deputees, and would take part in the debate pertaining to the historic handling of the telecommunications application, but would leave the room and not take part in the voting and discussion on future action on the matter. The Members accordingly left the room at the appropriate stage and took no part in the vote on this matter.

Councillor Mrs Kinnear, who the Committee had given permission to speak on this item, declared an interest on the same basis as the Members outlined above.

She also declared a prejudicial interest arising from her appointment as a representative of the Authority on the Harrow on the Hill Forum and as an LEA Governor at Roxeth School, where she was Chair of the Finance and Premises Committee. She advised that she understood that the head teacher of the school had written to the Authority objecting to the mast. She advised that, in accordance with Paragraph 12.2 of the Council’s Code of Conduct, these interests did not prohibit her from taking part in the discussion on this item. She also declared a personal interest arising from her membership of the Harrow on the Hill Trust.

Accordingly, Councillor Mrs Kinnear left the room at the appropriate stage of discussion.

Councillor Mrs Bath additionally declared a prejudicial interest in the above item and left the room and took no part in any of the discussion or voting on this item.

(ii)                 Planning Applications 2/05 and 2/06 – Arnold House Playing Fields, 44 Donnefield Avenue, Edgware – P/66/04/CFU & P/67/04/CCA

Councillor Bluston declared a personal interest in the above item arising from the fact that he was a member of the tennis club. Accordingly, he remained and took part in the decision-making and discussion on this item.

(iii)                Planning Application 2/11 – Peterborough and St Margaret’s School, 50 Common Road, Stanmore – P/1794/03/CCO

Councillor Mrs Joyce Nickolay declared a prejudicial interest in the above application arising from the fact that she was acquainted with the Head teacher of the above school. Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath, Janet Cowan and Knowles additionally declared prejudicial interests in the above item. Accordingly, the Members left the room and took no part in the discussion or decision-making on this item.

(iv)                Planning Application 2/12 – Stanmore Cricket Club, Pavilion Cricket Ground, 70 The Common, Stanmore – P/5/04/CFU

Councillor Bluston declared a personal interest in the above application arising from the fact that he had played at the cricket club. Accordingly, he remained and took  ...  view the full minutes text for item 523.

(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/information be admitted to the agenda by reason of the special circumstances and grounds for urgency stated:

and;

(2) all 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 meeting held on 11 February 2004 as a correct record once they have been printed in the Council Bound Minute Volume.

During discussion on this item, a Member raised queries regarding the minuting of comments made by Members of the Committee at the previous meeting in relation to planning application 2/01. Following discussion it was

RESOLVED: That it be agreed that, having been circulated, the Chair be given authority to sign the minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2004 as a correct record, subject to the deferral of approval of the minutes in so far as they relate to planning application 2/01.

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 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

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

RESOLVED: To note the receipt of the following petition which was considered with the relevant agenda item:

·                     Petition Objecting to the Construction programme at Templar House, 82 Northolt Road (Main agenda Item 11)

Councillor Mrs Kinnear presented the above petition which had been signed by 9 local residents.

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

RESOLVED: That, in accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 16 (Part 4B of the Constitution), the following deputation requests in relation to Agenda Item 28 be heard:

(1)        Dr Gail Marshall (deputation on behalf of local residents and Harrow School)

(2)        Mr Ted Allett (deputation on behalf of the Harrow on the Hill Trust)

(See Minute 548 - 102 High Street, Harrow on the HillI - Installation of Mobile Phone Base Station on Roof).

The Panel received a reference regarding the above issue from the Meeting of Council held on 26 February 2004. It was

RESOLVED: To note the above reference and that the planning application referred to would be submitted to the Committee for determination at its meeting scheduled to take place on 21 April 2004.

The Panel received a reference regarding the above issue from the Meeting of Council held on 26 February 2004. It was

RESOLVED:  To note (1) the above reference and that advice on this matter is currently being sought from the Borough Solicitor;

(2)  that officers will report back to a future meeting of the Committee.

To receive the attached reference.

The Committee received a reference regarding the above issue from the Tenants' and Leaseholders' Consultative Forum held on 4 March 2004.

RESOLVED: To note the above reference and that a report on this matter is included at agenda item 11.

(See also Minute 527 – Petitions and Minute 536 – Templar House, 82 Northolt Road, Harrow].

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 (1) in accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution), representations be received in respect of main agenda item 11 and item 2/14 on the list of planning applications;

(2) it be agreed to hear a late representation request in respect of item 2/10 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 applications considered, as set out in the schedule attached to these minutes.

The Committee received an application in respect of the above site for the renewal of the planning permission dated 17/9/99 for a single storey side extension with revised parking and access and the construction of a car park.

It was

RESOLVED:  That the applicant be informed that (1) the proposal is acceptable subject to the completion of a legal agreement within six months (or such period as the Council may determine) of the date of the Committee decision on the application relating to:-

i)                     Provision by the applicant of the contribution of £60,000 to the Local Planning Authority (as agreed for application reference P/160/03/CFU) to be used towards Harrow Town Centre infrastructure improvements, on commencement of either this development or that proposed under application P/160/03/CFU, whichever is the earliest; and

(2)  a formal decision notice granting permission, subject to the planning conditions and informatives reported, will be issued only upon completion of the aforementioned legal agreement.

The Committee received an application in respect of the above site for retention of revised car parking provision, new landscaping and additional fencing.

It was

RESOLVED:  That the applicant be informed that (1) the proposal is acceptable subject to the completion of a deed of variation of a legal agreement (dated 25^th June 1990) within one year (or such period as the Council may determine) of the date of the Committee decision on the application relating to:-

(i)                   an extension of the built upon area of the site to include the revised car parking provision; and

(2) a formal decision notice granting permission, subject to the planning conditions and informatives reported, will be issued only upon completion of the aforementioned legal agreement.

(See also Minute 523 – Declarations of Interest).

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer relating to planning application P/2018/03/CFU in respect of the above property. The report explained that the application had been submitted to the Committee for decision on 5 November 2003 and the Committee had resolved to grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement, however, it had since been discovered that, due to an error, some relevant properties had not been notified of the application. This mistake had now been rectified and the report outlined the additional responses received and maintained the recommendation for grant of planning permission subject to a legal agreement.

Prior to discussing the above report, the Committee received representations from two objectors who addressed the Committee on behalf of a number of local residents. The objectors outlined their concerns, which related to inadequate parking provision, exacerbation of traffic problems, inadequate amenity space, the unsuitability of the site to high density housing, and increased noise and disturbance and, therefore, the detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. They also objected to the application on the basis that cheap, small-sized office accommodation was much needed and criticised the ‘underhand’ planning process and the lack of consultation with residents.

In response, the  applicant  advised that the majority of the above issues had been addressed when the Committee had originally considered the application in November. However, he went on to argue that adequate amenity space was provided, including some communal amenity space, that the development would be of much benefit to key workers, and that car parking provision was in accordance with government policy.

Following receipt of the above representations, Members asked a number of questions of the applicant and then received the officer presentation. During the discussion which followed it was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the following grounds:

1.         There is a severe under provision of parking which would give rise to a loss of amenity with the resulting overspill parking in the surrounding area, which is outside of the restricted parking zone.

2.         The proposal would result in a loss of employment use which is contrary to the Council’s adopted and revised deposit draft UDP policy which contains a presumption against the loss of land or buildings within employment use.

3.         This proposal would be an over-development of the site by reason of its density which is well in excess of the Council’s UDP standards and on the grounds that there is insufficient amenity space to support the scale and density of this development.

Upon being put to a vote, this was not carried. Upon voting on the substantive issue it was

RESOLVED:  That (1) the additional consultation response be noted; and

(2)  the previous resolution to grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement be confirmed for the reasons outlined in the officer report and the previous report submitted to the Development Control Committee.

[Note: Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Mrs Bath, Janet Cowan, Knowles and Mrs Joyce Nickolay wished to be recorded as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 536.

Report if the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order proposed for the above site.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order(TPO) to be known as TPO 695, Runnelfield (No. 4), Harrow on the Hill, 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 report; and

(2)  revoke the following on confirmation of the above:

·         TPO 48, Runnelfield, South Hill Avenue, Harrow

·         TPO 115, Runnelfield (no.3), Harrow

·         TPO 85, Runnelfield (no. 2), Harrow

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order proposed for the above site.

RESOLVED: That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order(TPO) to be known as TPO 696, West End Lane (no. 3), 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 report; and

(2)  revoke TPO 10, Area 11 on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order proposed for the above site.

RESOLVED: That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order(TPO) to be known as TPO 698, Warren Lane (No. 1), Canons, 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 report; and

(2)  revoke the following on confirmation of the above:

·         TPO 126, The Common (No. 1), Stanmore

·         TPO 351, The Common (No. 3), Stanmore

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order proposed for the above site.

RESOLVED: That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1) make a new Tree Preservation Order(TPO) to be known as TPO 702, Canons Drive (No. 5), Canons, 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 report; and

(2) revoke TPO 10, Area 46 on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order proposed for the above site.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order(TPO) to be known as TPO 697, The Avenue (No. 4), Hatch End, 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 report; and

(2)  revoke TPO 10, Area 16 on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order proposed for the above site.

RESOLVED:  That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1)  make a new Tree Preservation Order(TPO) to be known as TPO 700, Oxhey Lane (No. 3), Hatch End, 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 report; and

(2)  revoke TPO 10, Area 17 on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding a new, detailed Tree Preservation Order proposed for the above site.

RESOLVED: That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1) make a new Tree Preservation Order(TPO) to be known as TPO 699, Oxhey Lane (No. 2), Hatch End, 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 report; and

(2) revoke TPO 10, Area 19 on confirmation of the above.

[REASON: To accord with current policy (see paragraph 6.2 of the officer report].

Joint Report of the Borough Solicitor and the Chief  Planning Officer.

The Committee received a joint report of the Borough Solicitor and the Chief Planning Officer which advised of a breach of planning control at the above address.

The report outlined the nature of the breach, which related to the conversion of a detached garden building at the rear of the above property, which under the approved scheme was to provide 2 car parking spaces, to a small dwelling house, and the provision of one parking space to the side on an area which, as part of the approved scheme, should have been laid to turf. The report advised that it was now considered expedient to issue an enforcement notice to rectify the breach for the reasons stated in the officer report.

RESOLVED: That, subject to his being satisfied as to the evidence, the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1) Issue an Enforcement Notice pursuant to Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring:

(i)                   the cessation of the use of the detached garden building as a single-family dwellinghouse;

(ii)                 the demolition of the front and internal ground floor walls, the removal of the kitchen units and sink, and the return of the use of the building to car parking as shown on plan 2572/10 of planning consent EAST/1213/01/FUL.

(i) and (ii) to be complied with within a period of 6 months from the date on which the Notice takes effect;

(2) Issue Notices under section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) as necessary in relation to the above alleged breach of planning control; and

(3) Institute legal proceedings in the event of failure to;

(i)                   supply the information required by the Borough Solicitor to the Council through the issue of Notice(s) under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

and/or

(ii)                 comply with the Enforcement Notice

[REASON: As outlined at paragraph 8 of the officer report].

Joint Report of the Borough Solicitor and Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a joint report of the Borough Solicitor and the Chief Planning Officer which advised of a breach of planning control at the above address.

The report outlined the nature of the breach, which was the erection, without planning permission, of a single storey rear extension and raised patio area at the rear of a single family dwellinghouse. The report advised that it was now considered expedient to issue an enforcement notice to rectify the breach for the reasons stated in the officer report.

RESOLVED: That, subject to his being satisfied as to the evidence, the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1) Issue an Enforcement Notice pursuant to Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring:

(i)                   the demolition of the single storey rear extension and patio;

(ii)                  the permanent removal of all materials resulting from the demoltion from the land.

(i) and (ii) to be complied with within a period of 3 months from the date on which the Notice takes effect;

(2) Issue Notices under section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) as necessary in relation to the above alleged breach of planning control; and

(3) Institute legal proceedings in the event of failure to;

(i)                   supply the information required by the Borough Solicitor to the Council through the issue of Notice(s) under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

and/or

(ii)                 comply with the Enforcement Notice

[REASON: As outlined at paragraph 8 of the officer report].

Report of the Chief Planning Officer (For Information Only).

The Panel revived a report of the Chief Planning Officer which set out a draft Conservation Area Character Study for the Harrow School Conservation Area. This report was provided for the information of the Development Control Committee and was to be submitted to the Unitary Development Plan Panel for approval to be made the subject of a public consultation process.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Joint Report of the Borough Solicitor and the Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a joint report of the Borough Solicitor and the Chief Planning Officer which advised of a breach of planning control at the above address.

The report outlined the nature of the breach, which was the erection of a single storey rear conservatory without planning permission.

The report advised that it was now considered expedient to issue an enforcement notice to rectify the breach for the reasons stated in the officer report. It was  advised that an enforcement notice, if approved, needed to be issued before May 2004.

RESOLVED: That, subject to his being satisfied as to the evidence, the Borough Solicitor be authorised to:

(1) Issue an Enforcement Notice pursuant to Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring:

(i)                   the demolition of the conservatory;

(ii)                 (ii)  the permanent removal of its constituent elements from the land.

(i) and (ii) to be complied with within a period of 3 months from the date on which the Notice takes effect;

(2) Issue Notices under section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) as necessary in relation to the above alleged breach of planning control; and

(3) Institute legal proceedings in the event of failure to;

(i)                   supply the information required by the Borough Solicitor to the Council through the issue of Notice(s) under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

and/or

(ii)                 comply with the Enforcement Notice

[REASON: As outlined at paragraph 8 of the officer report].

Joint Report of the Borough Solicitor and Chief Planning Officer.

The Committee received a joint report of the Borough Solicitor and of the Chief Planning Officer which advised that a number of Ombudsman and other complaints had been received  in respect of a mobile phone base station installed on the roof of 102  High Street, Harrow on the Hill under planning permission WEST/456/02/FUL, and sought the Committee’s views on possible action.

Prior to discussing the report, the Committee received two deputations. The first deputation consisted of a representative of Harrow School and two local residents. The deputees, inter alia, raised the following issues:

·                     Concern was expressed regarding the health effects of the mobile phone mast on local residents, and, in particular, local children and pupils at the nearby Harrow School. It was argued that, whilst the emissions from the base station were well below ICNIRP guidelines, the long-term effects of third generation masts were still unknown. The deputees pointed out that the Stewart Report on the health effects from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters, commissioned by the Government, concluded that, although the balance of evidence indicated that there was no general risk, the gaps in knowledge were sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.  They argued that the Authority should, accordingly, have refused permission for the mast on this basis.

The representative of Harrow School observed that PPG8 stated that the beam of greatest intensity emitted by masts should not fall within school grounds without the consent of parents and the school. He argued that, although there was no mention in the officer report of whether the beam did fall within school grounds, given the mast’s location, it seemed likely that it did. He stressed that no such consent had been sought.

·                     The deputees highlighted the detrimental impact of the mast on the visual amenity of local residents. They pointed out that permission for the installation of a mast at 42-44 High Street had recently been refused by the Committee on the basis of its detrimental impact on the Conservation Area and the amenity of local residents, and argued that the mast located at 102 High Street, which they considered to be larger and much more prominent, should therefore certainly have been rejected.

·                     The deputees criticised the fact that the proper planning procedure had not been followed and the inadequacy of the consultation procedure.

·                     The deputees urged the Committee to issue a Discontinuance Order.

The second deputation was from the Chair of the Harrow Hill Trust. He expanded on concerns raised in the first deputation, outlined above, regarding the detrimental impact of the mast on the Conservation Area, pointing out that both the CAAC (Conservation Area Advisory Committee) and the Council’s own Conservation Officer had objected to the mast on the grounds of its visual impact, and also arguing that the impact was much worse that that of the mast it replaced. He pointed out that the original mast erected on the building in 1974 had not had the benefit of the relevant permission. He further echoed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 548.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer.

FOR INFORMATION  

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer which listed those appeals being dealt with and those awaiting decision.

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. A Member requested that the grid be updated to reflect the current situation regarding the Stanmore Hill Hearing Centre.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

(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).

RESOLVED: That the action agreed/information outlined below be noted.

i)                     Circulation of Information re permission for pre-school nurseries in residential areas

During the discussion of planning application 2/10, Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Bluston and Janet Cowan requested information regarding those sites in the borough where permission for pre-school nurseries in residential areas had been granted.

ii)                   The demolition of the Railway Hotel/Demolition of Locally Listed Buildings

A Member advised that during the previous week it had come to his and one of his fellow Ward Member’s attention that the Railway Hotel, in respect of which a planning application had previously been submitted but later withdrawn by the developer  when they discovered that the property was a Locally Listed Building, was in the process of being demolished. When challenged, the developer had explained that damage to the property had been caused by a fire started by children and the developer was therefore  ‘tidying up’. The Member reported that currently only a third of the building was left standing.

The Member explained that the matter had been drawn to the attention of the Chief Planning Officer but he had been advised there was little recourse open to the Authority. It was noted that the developer was required to notify the Planning Authority of the action and had apparently done so but the notice had arrived late.

The Member expressed sadness at the loss of this building and wished to draw the matter to the attention of the Committee, and query what action could be taken.

In response, the Chief Planning Officer confirmed that Locally Listed Buildings were afforded only limited protection unless they were also situated in a Conservation Area. He advised that Local Listing was a useful tool in situations where a building was the subject of negotiation between the Planning Authority and a developer as it gave some policy basis to try and maintain important features of the building.

The Committee joined the Member in expressing sadness at the loss of the building and expressed regret that they were unable to take any further action in this matter.

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 11.30 pm;

(4) 11.30 pm to continue until 12.00 am;

(5) 12.00 am to continue until 12.15 am;

(6) 12.15 am to continue until 12.20 am;

(7) 12.20 am continue until 12.25 am;

(8) 12.25 am to continue until 12.30 am; and

(9) 12.30 am to continue until 12.35 am.