Agenda item

PROPOSAL:  creation of third floor comprising of eight flats (8 x  2 bed); parking; bin and cycle stores (as amended by the Addendum and Supplemental Addendum).

The Committee received representations from Nisha Chauhan (objector), and Ian Gilbert (agent for applicant). Both speakers outlined reasons for seeking refusal, and approval, of the application, respectively.

The Committee also received representation from Councillor Norman Stevenson (Back Bench) who urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Following questions and comments from Members, an officer advised that:

·                     the Highways related standards for typical parking spaces was  2.4m x 4.8m, while blue badge bays should have a width of 3.6m;

·                     the majority of proposed parking spaces met the minimum size; and

·                     the parallel parking spaces along the north-west side of the site had different dimensions, as they were narrower than 2.4m.  The Highways Officer had confirmed that the widths were acceptable for parallel parking and that the Council’s own parking bays of this type were typically 2.0m wide.  It had been determined that they should be longer than 4.8m to allow for manoeuvring room.  It is noted this would likely result in the loss of one space.  A revised wording to Condition 6 was included in the Supplemental Addendum for relevant amendments.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton proposed refusal for the following reasons:

1.            the proposed additional floor would introduce unwelcome mass and scale to the existing building, to the detriment of the character of the area and the adverse effect it would have on residential amenity within the locality, contrary to policy CS1 Harrow Core Strategy (2012), D1 London Plan (2021), Harrow Development Management Policies DM1 (2013); and

2.            the proposal offered a lack of car parking spaces to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers, contrary to policy CS1 (Part S) Harrow Core Strategy (2012), D1 London Plan (2021), DM42 Harrow Development Management Policy (2013).

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Anjana Patel, put to the vote, and lost.

The Committee resolved to accept officer recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION A

The Planning Committee was asked to:

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

2)            grant planning permission subject to authority being delegated to the Interim Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and other enabling legislation and issue of the planning permission and subject to minor amendments to the conditions (set out in Appendix 1 of this report) or the legal agreement.  The Section 106 Agreement Heads of  Terms would cover the following matters:

i.       Contribution of £3,000 for the introduction of waiting restrictions at the access to ensure that good visibility was maintained;

ii.      A financial contribution (to be agreed) to be paid by the developer to the Council to reimburse the Council’s legal costs associated with the preparation of the planning obligation and a further financial obligation (equivalent to 5% of the overall financial contribution) to be paid to reimburse the Council’s administrative costs associated with monitoring compliance with the obligation terms; and

iii.     The Developer to be responsible for the Council’s legal costs associated with the negotiation and preparation of the s.106 planning agreement and a further financial contribution to be paid to reimburse the Council’s administrative costs associated with monitoring compliance with the obligation terms of the agreement.

RECOMMENDATION B

That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 30th September 2021, or as such extended period as may be agreed by the Interim Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, then it is recommended to delegate the decision to REFUSE planning permission to the Interim Chief Planning Officer on the grounds that:  The proposed development, in the absence of a Legal Agreement to provide appropriate improvements, benefits and monitoring that directly relate to the development, would fail to adequately mitigate the impact of the development on the wider area and provide for necessary physical infrastructural improvements arising directly from the development, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies T3 and DF1 of The London Plan (2021), Core Strategy (2012) policy CS1, and policy DM1, DM43 and DM 50 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan and the Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations & Affordable Housing (2013).

DECISION:  GRANT – Subject to Legal Agreement

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

Councillors Ali, Assad, Brown and Maru voted to grant the application.

Councillors Ashton, Baxter and Patel voted against the application.