Agenda item

PROPOSAL: outline application for Access Only - redevelopment to provide four storey building with basement comprising of sporting higher education facility, student accommodation, hotel, medical diagnostic centre; plant and associated works (as amended by the Addendum and Supplemental Addendum).

In accordance with the Protocol on Planning Committee Meetings (7.2), the Committee received representations from Mr Sean McGrath (for the applicant). He outlined reasons for seeking refusal of the officer recommendations, and subsequently requesting that the application be granted.

The Chair proposed that the Committee be minded to disagree with officer recommendations, and that the application be brought back to Committee for determination at a later date. 

The motion was seconded, put to the vote, and agreed.

The Committee resolved to refuse the officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION A

The Planning Committee was asked to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1)    The proposed uses comprising of a hotel, sporting higher education facility including student accommodation and medical diagnostics centre would give rise to inappropriate uses on the site which would be in direct conflict with the site’s allocation for community outdoor sport development and by reason of the site’s low accessibility, sitting outside of a town centre and insufficient evidence to demonstrate the need for the uses proposed, would give rise to an unsustainable development, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies 3.16, 3.19 and 4.5 of The London Plan (2016), policies S5, E10G, SD7, S1 and S3B of The Draft London Plan - Intend to Publish (2019), core policies CS1 Z, F and L of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policies DM 34, DM 46 and DM 48B of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) and Site MOS5 of the Harrow Site Allocations (2013);

2)    The proposed development would result in a direct loss of protected designated open space and would not provide a use which is ancillary or appropriate to the existing open space, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policy 7.18 of The London Plan (2016), policy G4 of The Draft London Plan - Intend to Publish (2019), core policy CS1 F of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policy DM18 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013);

3)    The proposed development, in the absence of a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan, fails to demonstrate the impacts of the development on the surrounding highway network, and to propose measures to promote sustainable travel modes and to reduce the effects of travel by car. Insufficient information has therefore been provided to demonstrate that the proposals would not result in unacceptable harm to the surrounding highway network through increased pressure on local parking amenity and on local transport infrastructure from excessive vehicle trips, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies 6.3, 6.10 and 6.13 of The London Plan 2016), policies T1, T2, T4, and T6 of the Draft London Plan – Intend to Publish (2019), policy 1 of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, policy CS1 R of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and policies DM 42 and DM 43 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013);

4)    The proposed development, in the absence of a Preliminary Ecological Assessment and the site’s close proximity to the adjoining Borough Grade I Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and the River Brent, 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 7.19 of The London Plan (2019), policy G6 of the Draft London Plan - Intend to Publish (2019), and policies DM 48 A b, DM 20 and DM 21 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013);

5)    The proposal, by reason of an unsatisfactory Flood Risk Assessment, fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would result in a net reduction in flood risk, be resistant and resilient to flooding, would not exacerbate the risk of flooding within the site or increase the risk and consequences of flooding elsewhere or provide a dry means of escape for the future users, to the detriment of the safety of the adjoining occupiers and the future users of the development, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies 5.12 and 5.13 of The London Plan (2016), policies SI12 and SI 13 of the Draft London Plan (2019), Core Policy CS1 U of Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and policies DM 9 and DM 10 of the Harrow Development  management Polices Local Plan (2013);

6)    The proposed development, by reason of the indicated heights and conflicting floorspace figures proposed, would be likely to result in a harmful, bulky and unduly dominant addition to the site which would significantly detract from the open character of the site and the surroundings, and would fail to respect the existing development on the site or contribute positively to the site’s setting and the quality of the open space, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies 7.4 B and 7.6 B of The London Plan (2017), policies D1 and D3 of the Draft London Plan (2019), core policy CS 1 B and F of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and policy DM 18 C/D of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013);

7)    The proposed development, by reason of the excessive amount of development proposed, the proposed uses and the absence of a Noise Assessment or Lighting Impact Assessment, would give rise to unacceptable harmful outlook and visual impacts, as well as potential unreasonable noise and disturbance impacts from the increased intensity of use of the site, to the detriment of the residential and visual amenities of the adjacent neighbouring occupiers, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies 7.4 B, 7.6B and 7.15 of The London Plan (2016), policies D3, D13 and D14 of the Draft London Plan - Intend to Publish (2019) and policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013);

8)    The proposed development, in the absence of an Air Quality Assessment, fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would be Air Quality Neutral and would not have the potential to contribute to a deterioration in air quality in the locality, to the detriment of the future users of the site and wider area and the overall environmental quality of the London Borough of Harrow, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policy 7.14 of The London Plan (2016), policy of the SI 1 of the Draft London Plan – Intend to Publish (2019) and polices DM 1 and DM 12 of the Harrow development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).

DECISION: MINDED TO GRANT

The Committee wished it to be recorded that their decision to be “minded to grant” the application, which would be brought back to Committee at a later date, was by the Chair’s Casting Vote.

Councillors Assad, Brown and Ferry voted for the application.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted against.

Councillor Robson abstained from voting on the application.

The Chair used his Casting Vote to be minded to grant the application.