Agenda item

2/01, 1 Ash Hill Drive, P/0719/22


PROPOSAL:  redevelopment to provide three storey building comprising 8 x 2 bed units; proposed vehicle access via supermarket to rear; parking; landscaping; bin and cycle stores; amenity space (as amended by the Addendum).


The Committee received representation from Anneliese Pugh (objector), and Danielle St James (agent for the applicant) who urged the Committee to refuse, and grant the application, respectively.


The Committee also heard from Councillor Kuha Kumaran, who urged the Committee to refuse the application.


Councillor Christopher Baxter was concerned about the reduction to car parking spaces, and how much of it would be lost.  How would access by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) be addressed during certain times of the day?


The Head of Planning Development advised that those issues were addressed under paragraph 6.5 of the report.  The development would remove 20 car parking spaces within the 196 space Tesco car park (with 176 remaining).  The transport management plan would give details on HGV access.


Councillors Ghazanfar Ali, Christopher Baxter and Norman Stevenson raised concerns on safety issues for residents’ access to the car park, and the narrowness of the pavement.


The Head of Planning Development advised that there was a distance of about 4.8 metres from the footway to residents’ front entrance, which was considered adequate.  Furthermore, the proposed refuse store, which would be in a standalone structure at the rear of the site, could be moved to allow for more resident access.  The vehicle parking area was separated from the main highway (from Cuckoo Hill) by landscaping, and only benefited from pedestrian access via the bin collection point.


Councillor Nitin Parekh asked how residents of Camden Row would be given free access to parking at the proposed development.


The Head of Development Planning advised that this would be done using number plate recognition technology for residents.


Having had regard to the information in the Officer’s report, and having conducted a site visit, the following were grounds for refusal proposed by Councillor Marilyn Ashton:


1)              the proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site by reason of its unsympathetic and bulky design, which would be visually obtrusive and incongruous in the street scene, resulting in it appearing to be overbearing, out of keeping and would not preserve the setting of the Locally Listed cottages along Cuckoo Hill and would be out of character as regards the lower rise dwelling houses opposite the site, contrary to the National Planning Framework (2021), CS1 Harrow Core Strategy (2012), DM1, DM7 Harrow Planning Policy Framework (2013) and D3 London Plan (2021).


The proposal was seconded by Councillor Norman Stevenson, put to the vote and agreed.


The Committee voted and resolved to refuse officer recommendations.




The 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.       prior to commencement of the development a Deed of Easement shall be submitted to the Council demonstrating that vehicular and pedestrian access to the site, via the Tesco site, is provided and shall be retained in perpetuity;

ii.     replacement Tree Planting Contribution (8x Trees at £633.9 p/tree = £5,071.20);

iii.    monitoring fee (£1,870);

iv.    Financial contribution towards the ongoing maintenance of the strip of land designated as Adopted Highways Land fronting Cuckoo Hill [£TBC];

v.     Legal Fees:  Payment of Harrow Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the legal agreement.




That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 28 February 2023, or as such extended period as may be agreed by the Interim Chief Planning Officer, 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 ensure unimpeded vehicular and pedestrian access to the site, and failure to secure suitable replacement tree planting would fail to comply with policies CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy (2011), Policies DM1, DM2, DM21, DM22 and DM23 of the Harrow Development Management Policies (2013) and Policies D3, T5, G5, T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021).




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


Councillors Ali, Ashton, Baxter, Stevenson and Wagman voted to refuse the application.


Councillors Assad and Parekh voted abstained from voting.

Supporting documents: