Agenda and minutes

The Committee observed a minute of silence in honour of the late James King, Head of Building Control, who had passed away suddenly during the past week.  He had worked for Harrow Council for over 20 years (between 2001 and 2021).

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 Members:

To agree requests to speak from Councillors who are not Members of the Committee, in accordance with Committee Procedure 4.1.

RESOLVED:  That, in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 4.1, the following Councillors, who were not Members of the Committee, be allowed to speak on the agenda item indicated:

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 Committee;

(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 in addition the following interests were also declared:

Agenda Item 1/01, Stanmore Station Car Park, London Road, P/1220/20

Councillor Nitin Parekh declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he lived in the area in which the proposed development was located.

Agenda Item 2/04, Hive Farm Bushey, P/3741/21

Councillor Marilyn Ashton declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she lived off Common Road, but not near enough to have been notified. 

Agenda Item 2/04, Hive Farm Bushey, P/3741/21

Councillor Stephen Greek declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was a member of the Harrow Weald Common Conservators.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2021 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2021 be taken as read, subject to the amendments in the Addendum, and signed as a correct record.

To receive any public questions received in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

Questions will be asked in the order in which they were received.  There will be a time limit of 15 minutes for the asking and answering of public questions.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, 23 July 2021.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk   

No person may submit more than one question].

RESOLVED:  To note that four public questions were received, and responded to.  Three of the four public questions had supplemental questions, which would be responded to in writing.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions were received.

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

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received.

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

RESOLVED:  To note that the petition on 265 The Ridgeway be received, after being referred to the Planning Committee from the Council meeting on 16 July 2020.  The petition would be referred to the Corporate Director (Community) and the Portfolio Holder for Portfolio Holder for Strategy, Regeneration Partnerships and Devolution for response.

The contents of the petition were noted in the discussion that ensued on the application.

RESOLVED:  To accept the Addendum, and Supplemental Addendum.

To confirm whether representations are to be received, under Committee Procedure Rule 29 (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 29 (Part 4B of the Constitution), representations be received in respect of Agenda Items 1/01, 1/02 and 2/02 on the list of planning applications.

PROPOSAL:  redevelopment of existing public car park to provide new residential accommodation (Use Class C3), commercial floorspace at ground floor and flexible ground floor space. Development of a public car park along with associated works (as amended by the Addendum).

The Committee received representation from the following back bench Councillors - Councillor Philip Benjamin, Councillor Stephen Greek and Councillor Ameet Jogia.  They all urged the Committee to accept officer recommendations, and refuse the application.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed to replace Reason 1, and add a new Reason 2, with the other existing reasons to follow, as:

1.              the proposed development represents an over development of the site and is out of keeping with its surroundings to the detriment of the character of the area and residential amenities within the locality, by reason of its poor design, scale and mass and excessively high buildings, in particular building A and buildings C and D, contrary to policy CS1, CS1B Harrow Core Strategy (2012), DM1 Harrow Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and D1, D4, D9 London Plan (2021); and

2.              the proposal would do significant harm to the open setting and character of Kerry Avenue Conservation Area and adjacent Locally Listed Station Building, contrary to Policy CS1, CS1D Harrow Core Strategy (2012), DM1, DM7 of Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), D1, HC1 London Plan (2021) and the Kerry Avenue Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (2013).

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Christopher Baxter, put to the vote, and lost.

Councillors Fitzpatrick, Henson, Maru and Parekh voted against the amendment to the reasons for refusal.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Thakker voted for the amendment to the reason for refusal.

Therefore, the motion to amend the reasons for refusal was not carried.

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations, and retain the reasons for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee was asked to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

1.              the proposed building A, by reason of its siting and scale, bulk, design and height would give rise to significant harm to the open setting and character of Kerry Park Avenue Conservation Area and adjacent Locally Listed Station building.  The overall public benefits of the scheme, including an insufficient level of genuinely affordable housing in line with affordability levels of local borough residents and an excessive level of shared ownership product, contrary to the boroughs housing needs, does not on balance outweigh the harm identified.  In the absence of clear and convincing justification in terms of overall public the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies D3 D (1),(11), D9 C (d) and HC1 C of the London Plan (2021), policy CS 1 B and D of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), Policy DM 7 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013) and the Kerry Avenue Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (2013);

2.              the proposed development, by reason of direct loss to SINC land and insufficient mitigation measures would cause harm to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 355.

PROPOSAL:  redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use scheme comprising buildings ranging from 3-7 storeys for the provision of residential units (C3); D1 floorspace and associated open space, landscaping, access, car parking, refuse stores and cycle parking and other associated works (as amended by the Addendum and Supplemental Addendum).

The Committee received representations from the following back bench Councillors - Councillor Stephen Greek, Councillor Kairul Kareema Marikar, Councillor Christine Robson, Councillor Sasikala Suresh and Councillor Adam Swersky.  They all urged the Committee to accept officer recommendations, and refuse the application.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed to add a new Reason 1, with the existing reasons to follow, as:

1.              the proposed development represents an over-intensive use of the site and is out of character with its surroundings in an area comprising typically semi-detached, two-storey, suburban dwelling houses and a much cherished and well frequented allotment, to the detriment of the visual and residential amenities within the locality, by reason of its excessive scale, mass and height, contrary to policy CS1, CS1B and CS1D Harrow Core Strategy (2012), DM1 Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), and D1, D4, D9 London Plan (2021).

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Christopher Baxter, put to the vote, and agreed.

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations, and add a new Reason 1 (above).

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee was asked to:

1.              agree the reasons for refusal as set out in the report; and

2.              refuse planning permission:

                    I.    notwithstanding the viability appraisal toolkit submitted with this application and the applicant’s ‘without prejudice’ offer of affordable housing on this site, the proposal fails to demonstrate that the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing can be achieved on this site as required by policy H5 of The London Plan (2021) and core policy CS1 (J) of the Harrow Core strategy (2012) and the proposal would fail to deliver an appropriate tenure mix that would meet the Borough’s housing priority need, contrary to core policy CS1 (I) of the Harrow Core Strategy and the guidance contained in the adopted Supplementary Planning Document:  Planning Obligations (2013).  The proposed development therefore fails to address strategic housing objectives including the provision of mixed, balanced and sustainable communities, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021) and core policies CS1(I) and CS1(J) of The Harrow Core Strategy (2012);

                  II.    the proposed development, in the absence of sufficient information within the provided Ecological Impact Assessment to quantify the ongoing impacts on the adjacent Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) or provision of opportunities for local biodiversity mitigation or enhancement within the vicinity of the site, thereby fails to demonstrate that biodiversity value of the surrounding area would not be harmed, protected or enhanced, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policy G6 C and D of the London Plan (2021), policy CS 1 E of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and policies DM20 and DM21 of the Harrow Development Management  ...  view the full minutes text for item 356.

PROPOSAL:  steel framed building to provide new warehouse (Use Class B8) to north side of existing warehouse building.

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations, as amended by the Addendum.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee was asked to:

1.              agree the reason for approval as set out in the report; and

2.              grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the report, and the Addendum.

DECISION:  GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous.

PROPOSAL:  single storey front extension incorporating front porch; single and two storey side to rear extension; single storey rear extension; alterations and extension to roof; rear dormer; three rooflights - one each in front, side and rear roofslopes; external alterations.

The Committee received representation from Emily Benedek (agent on behalf of Mrs Renee Gilbert - objector), and from Hiten Chauhan (applicant), who urged the Committee to refuse and approve the application, respectively.

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee was asked to:

1.              agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report; and

2.              grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

DECISION:  GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was by majority of votes.

Councillors Fitzpatrick, Henson, Maru and Parekh voted to grant the application.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Thakker abstained from voting on the application.

PROPOSAL:  redevelopment to provide two storey building comprising of four industrial units (Use class B1(c)).

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations, as amended by the Addendum.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee was asked to:

1.              agree the reason for approval as set out in the report; and

2.              grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in Appendix 1 of the report, and the Addendum.

DECISION:  GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous.

PROPOSAL:  proposed vehicle access.

The Committee expressed disquiet at some of the observations in the Inspector’s Report.  However, they would abide by them. 

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations, as amended by the Addendum.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee was asked to:

1.              agree the reasons for approval as set out in the report; and

2.              grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report, and the Addendum.

DECISION:  GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous.

The audio recording of this meeting can be found at the following link:

https://www.harrow.gov.uk/virtualmeeting