Agenda item

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 biodiversity value of the site and surrounding area.  The harm identified, in the absence of any biodiversity compensation, fails to demonstrate that biodiversity value of the site and surrounding area would not be harmed, protected or enhanced, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policies G5 and G6 C and D of the London Plan (2021) policy CS 1 E of the Harrow Core Strategy and policies DM 20 and DM 21 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013); and

3.              the proposed development, by reason of the siting of buildings C and D together with their height bulk and scale and their relationship with the residential dwellings No’s 12-30 of Westbere Drive, would give rise to an unneighbourly, overly dominant and overbearing form of development, to the detriment of the residential and visual amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), policy D3 D (1), (7) of the London Plan (2021), policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), the Mayoral Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016) and Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2010).

DECISION:  REFUSE

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