Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning - circulated separately.

 

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Planning Protocol, where Councillors disagree with the advice of the Chief Planning Officer, it will be the Members' responsibility to clearly set out the reasons for refusal where the Officer recommendation is for grant.  The planning reasons for rejecting the Officer's advice must be clearly stated, whatever the recommendation and recorded in the minutes.  The Officer must be given the opportunity to explain the implications of the contrary decision.

In accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the Addendum was admitted late to the agenda as it contained information relating to various items on the agenda and was based on information received after the despatch of the agenda.  It was admitted to the agenda in order to enable Members to consider all information relevant to the items before them for decision.

 

The Head of Planning submitted reports in relation to the following applications for determination.

 

RESOLVED:  That authority be given to the Head of Planning to issue the decision notices in respect of the applications considered.

 

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

 

(1)                 51 COLLEGE ROAD, HARROW (APPLICATION 1/01)

 

Reference: P/1620/08/SK – (Dandara Limited). Revised Application For Redevelopment To Provide 410 Flats In 3 Blocks Ranging Between 3 and 19 Storeys In Height; 87 Car Parking Spaces In Basement, 3 Parking Spaces At Ground Floor Level; 442 Cycle Spaces, 7 Motorcycle Spaces; 1120 Square Metres of A1, A2, A3, A4 and B1 Floor Space At Ground Floor Level; Creation Of Public Square And Pedestrian Footbridge.

 

Following the withdrawal of one objector in respect of their speaking rights the Committee received representations from two objectors, Navin Shah (London Assembly Member) and Abe Hayeem; one supporter, Reverend Bob Gardiner, and the Applicant’s representative, Andrew Wagstaff, which were noted.

 

The officer advised the Committee that full consideration of this strategic development required that they consider:

 

·                     the policy context and consideration of the principle of the development;

 

·                     consideration of the context – sensitivities and key physical considerations and potential impacts;

 

·                     suitability of the development proposed by the applicants (including consideration of comments received through consultations/ notifications /petitions); and

 

·                     the response and impacts of the development in the context of the above and consideration of any mitigation proposed having regard to all information submitted.

 

Insofar as securing a full understanding of the context for the development, a substantial site visit had been held encompassing a range of locations detailed on the addendum report.  

 

The officer spoke on options for approval and refusal advising that both arguments were before Members for consideration.  In response to questions raised the officer responded as follows:

 

·                     the affordable housing element fell short of development plan aspirations however, the additional policy benefits in relation to a bridge and enhancement of the transport infrastructure were viewed by the GLA and officers as representing an appropriate balance;

 

·                     should there be an insistence to achieve a threshold of 30% affordable housing this would impact on the viability of the project and if implemented could result in other key elements of the proposals not being deliverable;

 

·                     the new bridge would be funded by S106 funding but, the finer details in relation to design and form would be subject to the approval of Transport for London, who would be keen to ensure all rail safety requirements were adhered to.  Delivery of the bridge project would be the responsibility of the borough council, together with ongoing maintenance;

 

·                     the assessment of daylight on new windows within the development suggested that 90% of rooms would comply with BRE deadlines.  Of the remaining 10%, these were rooms below the 7^th floor level but it was officers considered opinion that, although these rooms would not meet daylight levels recommended by BRE there would not be any significant shortcomings in terms of light levels;

 

·                     the nearest residential site impacted by the proposals were flats located on the College Road but, it was considered the impact was within acceptable levels;

 

·                     in terms of prematurity and consideration of the consequences of the development on the area, there were surrounding developments which had already impacted upon the character of the area;

 

·                     in referring to the School Organisation Plan 2008 it was officers considered opinion that the proposals would not exceed available capacity in terms of school places, particularly as the development was not aimed at the family market;

 

·                     the development was a high density proposal that exceeded the density levels suggested within the London Plan Density Matrix;

 

·                     the location of the three buildings to each other was 17 metres between buildings C and B, and 12 metres between A and B;

 

·                     the refuse area was proposed to be located in the basements of the buildings and indicated provision was deemed reasonable with approximately [42 commercial bins in each of 11 storage areas and 15 residential bins].

 

The Committee considered the proposal before them in terms of the available Development Plans, Spatial Policy, Adopted London Plan, various Planning Documents, Supplementary Planning Guidances, transport hubs and the Council’s own policies.  Regard was had to the representations received and material planning considerations outlined in the report.

 

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused by reason of by reason of excessive bulk and mass; the scale and intensity would be overbearing, visually obtrusive, detrimental to the character and appearance of the vicinity and the views in a wider context

 

It was then moved and seconded that the argument in relation to prematurity of the development be agreed as a reason for refusal.  Upon a vote this was lost.

 

The initial reason for refusal, having already been proposed and seconded, was then put to the vote and was carried. 

 

DECISION:  REFUSED by reason of excessive bulk and mass, scale and intensity would be overbearing, visually obtrusive, detrimental to the character and appearance of the nearby Conservation Area, Area of Special Character and MOL and would appear over dominant in the skyline to the detriment of the long views of Harrow on the Hill by reason of competing with the primacy of the St Mary’s Spire, a historic landmark and, when viewed from The Grove Open Space and within the locality, would be detrimental to the views of the Harrow Weald Ridge, contrary to HUDP policies D4, D14, D31 and EP31 and London plan policies 4B1, 4B2, 4B10, 4B11 and 4B12.

 

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

 

(2)                 57 – 103 COLES CRESCENT, RAYNERS LANE ESTATE, HARROW (APPLICATION 1/02)

 

Reference: P/0735/09/DC3/MAJ – (Mr Omoyele Thomas). Redevelopment to Provide 13 Houses Ranging From 2?3 Storeys In Height And One 4 Storey Block To Provide 8 Flats And 23 Parking Spaces.

 

In introducing the report the officer advised of the applicant’s interest in increasing the current number of affordable housing units identified as part of the proposals should this prove possible.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

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

 

(3)                 SCANMOOR HOUSE, NORTHOLT ROAD, HARROW (APPLICATION 1/03)

 

Reference: P/0620/09/RH/MAJ – (EuroTraveller Hotel Group). Change Of Use From Office Building (B1 Use) To A Hotel (C1 Use) With 44 Rooms, Restaurant, Kitchen And Conference Facilities. Roof Extension To Provide 5^th Floor, 1^st To 5^th Floor Side Extension And 1^st Floor Rear Extension.

 

In introducing the report and in response to Member’s questions the officer confirmed that the scheme was subject to a Section 106 funding agreement and that a maximum of 50 people could be accommodated within the Conference Centre.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the completion of a legal agreement, as amended on the Addendum.

 

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

 

(4)                 36 SITES AROUND STANMORE AND CANONS PARK, SEE SITE PLAN REFERENCE STAN 1000 ON WEBSITE FOR THE ERUV 9KM (APPROX) BOUNDARY (APPLICATION 1/04)

 

Reference: P/0405/09/DC3/ MAJ – (Mr Brian Wolkind). Construction Of Pole And Wire Gateways And Sections Of Gates/Fencing To Form An Eruv For Stanmore And Canons Park.

 

The Vice-Chairman took the chair for the consideration of the application.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the conditions and informatives reported, as amended on the Addendum.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous by those of the Committee able to vote.

 

(5)                 WHITEFRIARS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, TUDOR ROAD (APPLICATION 2/01)

 

Reference: P/0969/09/EJ/W – (Harrow College). Change Of Use From Industrial Use To Engineering Skills And Training Use (Class D1).

 

In introducing the report the officer advised that the scheme was a departure from the Unitary Development Plan in respect to the use of a vacant commercial premises.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

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

 

(6)                 THE SACRED HEART LANGUAGE COLLEGE, 186 HIGH STREET, WEALDSTONE (APPLICATION 2/02)

 

Reference: P/0173/09/LM/C – (Harrow Council). Construction Of New Two Storey Building To Provide Sixth Form Centre; Three New Parking Spaces; Landscaping; Removal Of Existing Single Storey Classroom Building; New 2.1M High Fence.

 

The Officer introduced the report noting that this matter had been deferred from the May Committee and that a site visit had been carried out prior to the Committee.  The Committee expressed its concern at the proposed vehicle access across a pedestrian access and noted the applicant was Harrow Council.

 

In considering the application the Committee agreed that Condition 14 (alternative parking) should be deleted as it was inappropriate.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 for the development described in the application and submitted plans as amended on the Addendum, subject to the deletion of Condition 14.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous by those of the Committee able to vote.

 

(7)                 PINNER PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL, MELBOURNE AVENUE, PINNER (APPLICATION 2/03)

 

Reference: P/0596/09/GL/C – (Harrow Council), Construction Of 2 Storey Building To House ICT And Music Departments And Erection Of Link Building To Existing Structure; New External Staircase; New Fence.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

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

 

(8)                 83A HINDES ROAD, HARROW (APPLICATION 2/04)

 

Reference: P/0519/09/LM/C – (Mr and Mrs Choudhry). Alterations To Roof To Form End Gable And Rear Dormer; One Window In Front Roofslope And One Side Window In End Gable Flank Wall.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the addition of plans, as amended on the Addendum.

 

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

 

(9)                 25 ELMS ROAD, HARROW WEALD (APPLCIATION 2/05)

 

Reference: P/0692/09/GL/C – (Farmbridge Developments). Redevelopment: Detached Three Storey Block Of Eight Flats With Basement Parking.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the addition of consultation and notification responses, as amended on the Addendum.

 

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

 

(10)             157 – 159 VILLAGE WAY, PINNER (APPLICATION 2/06)

 

Reference: P/0014/09/SB5/W – (RNB Properties). Retention Of Single And Two Storey Building With Accommodation In Roof And Conversion Into Three Terraced Dwellinghouses; Proposed Vehicle Access To Village Way; Retention Of Detached Double Garage At The Rear With Proposed Access To Cannon Lane.

 

The Planning Officer referred to the addendum and the additional comments now received from the Highways Engineer and in response to questions raised by the Committee advised that:

 

·                     one of the proposed properties was unlikely to have an identified parking space;

 

·                     the concern with regard to the garage needed to be considered in the context of the three properties proposed;

 

·                     the concerns regarding the size of the proposed kitchen must meet the test of “reasonable”.

 

DECISION:  REFUSED for the reason that the detached double garage at the rear, by reason of its unacceptable siting, cannot be easily accessed by vehicles and therefore, the provision for off-street parking on site is insufficient and unsatisfactory for the dwelling houses as built, and as such the development comprising 3 family homes would give rise to conditions prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and highway safety in Village Way and Cannon Lane, contrary to policies D4 and T13 of the HUDP 2004.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to refuse the application was unanimous with regard to those Members who exercised their right to vote.

 

(11)             GARAGES REAR OF 9 – 11 NOWER HILL, PINNER (APPLICATION 2/07)

 

Reference: P/0348/09/SB5/W – (DKA Investments Ltd and SCSC Developments Ltd). Conservation Area Consent: Demolition Of Garages To Rear Of 9 – 11 Nower Hill.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the voting was as follows:

 

Councillors Husain Akhtar, Marilyn Ashton, Mrinal Choudhury, Manji Kara, Julia Merison and Joyce Nickolay as having supported the grant,

 

Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar abstained.

 

(12)             LAND TO THE REAR OF 9 – 15 NOWER HILL, PINNER (APPLICATION 2/08)

 

Reference: P/0349/09/SB5/W – (DKA Investments Ltd and SCSC Developments Ltd). Pair Of Semi Detached Houses With Habitable Roofspace; Two Garages And Hardstanding At Rear With Widened Vehicle Access From The Chase.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the voting was as follows:

 

Councillors Husain Akhtar, Marilyn Ashton, Mrinal Choudhury, Manji Kara, Julia Merison and Joyce Nickolay as having supported the grant,

 

Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar abstained.

 

(13)             HERIOTS, THE COMMON, STANMORE (APPLICATION 2/09)

 

Reference: P/4085/08/ML1/W – (Mr and Mrs L. Portnoi). Detached Stable Block And Manege For Domestic Use (Revised).

 

The Committee received representations from one objector, Mr Anton Felter, and the Applicant, Pauline Portnoi, which were noted.

 

The officer spoke on the proposals in relation to the development and noted that the site had been subject to a site visit by the Committee.  She responded to questions from Members as follows:

 

·                     an ecological survey had been undertaken with respect to the proposals and that no potential impact due to horse waste on the site had been raised as part of this;

 

·                     proposed Condition 6 would address any outstanding concerns regarding disposal of waste.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

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

 

(14)             HARROW ARTS CENTRE, UXBRIDGE ROAD, HATCH END (APPLICATION 2/10)

 

Reference: P/0918/09/GL/C – (Harrow Council). Demolition Of Existing Storage Shed And Erection Of New Brick Clad Modular Building To Provide Multipurpose Community Learning And Events Facility.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for further consideration by officers in relation to plans.

 

(15)             HARROW ARTS CENTRE, UXBRIDGE ROAD, HATCH END (APPLICATION 2/11)

 

Reference: P/0922/09/LC3/CONS – (Harrow Council). Listed Building Consent: Demolition Of Existing Storage Shed And Erection Of New Brick Clad Modular Building To Provide Multipurpose Community Learning And Events Facility Within Curtilage of Elliott Hall.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for further consideration by officers in relation to plans.

 

(16)             NORTH LONDON COLLEGIATE SCHOOL, CANONS DRIVE, EDGWARE (APPLICATION 2/12)

 

Reference: P/0633/09/FOD/E – (NLCS The Governors). Single Storey Detached Pavilion Adjacent To Sports Pitches.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the voting was as follows:

 

Councillors Husain Akhtar, Marilyn Ashton, Mrinal Choudhury, Manji Kara, Julia Merison and Joyce Nickolay as having supported the grant,

 

CouncillorThaya Idaikkadar voted against..

 

 

(17)             7 – 9 STANMORE HILL, STANMORE (APPLICATION 2/13)

 

Reference: P/0850/09/FOD/E – (Mr Jasen Quake). Change Of Use Of First Floor From Offices To Restaurant (Class B1 to A3) For Use In Association With Ground Floor Restaurant.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Licensing & General Purposes Committee be advised of this Committee’s concerns with regard to the public house activities.

 

DECISION:

 

(1)                 GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the conditions and informatives reported, as amended on the Addendum.

 

(2)                 That the final negotiations in relation to the conditions to be applied to the application and their wording be delegated to the Head of Planning.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the voting was as follows:

 

Councillors Husain Akhtar, Marilyn Ashton, Thaya Idaikkadar, Manji Kara, Julia Merison and Joyce Nickolay as having supported the grant,

 

Councillor Mrinal Choudhury abstained.

 

(18)             44 JELLICOE GARDENS, STANMORE (APPLICATION 2/14)

 

Reference: P/0490/09/NRE – (Mr Rohit Shah). Retention Of Single Storey Detached Outbuilding At Rear, With Alterations To Remove Window In The West Elevation.

 

DECISION: 

 

(1)                 GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the conditions and informatives reported, as amended on the Addendum.

 

(2)                 That the final negotiations in relation to the conditions to be applied to the application and their wording be delegated to the Head of Planning.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous with regard to those Members who exercised their right to vote.

 

(19)             LAND ADJACENT TO HIGHFIELD, HILL HOUSE AVENUE, STANMORE (APPLICATION 2/15)

 

Reference: P/0711/09/NR/E – (Mr and Mrs David Limerick). Detached Two Storey House.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the additional representations reported, as amended on the Addendum.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous with regard to those Members who exercised their right to vote.

 

(20)             ELM PARK, STANMORE (APPLICATION 2/16).

 

Reference: P/0281/09/NR/E – (Dr Ralph Abrahams). Variation Of Condition 7 Of Planning Permission LBH/36494 To Allow The Number Of General Practitioners, Qualified Medical Advisors And Nursing Staff Seeing And Consulting With Patients Within The Surgery At Any One Time To Be Limited To Three.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous with regard to those Members who exercised their right to vote.

 

(21)             MARLBOROUGH FIRST AND MIDDLE SCHOOL, MARLBOROUGH HILL, HARROW, HA1 1UJ (APPLICATION 2/17)

 

Reference: P/1029/09/SL/MAJ – (Harrow Council). 2 No. X Single Storey Temporary Classroom Units, Temporary Mobile WC, Temporary Car Park And Crossover, External Alterations To Existing School Buildings And Reconstruction Of Raised Play Area.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous with regard to those Members who exercised their right to vote.

 

(22)             LAND ADJACENT TO LINKSWAY, MAY TREE LANE, STANMORE (APPLICATION 2/18)

 

Reference: P/0617/09/GC/E – (Shield Homes Limited). Single/Two Storey Detached House With Access To Woodward Gardens (Revised) With Details Of External Surface Materials, Boundary Treatment, Ground Surfacing And Landscaping.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous with regard to those Members who exercised their right to vote.

 

(23)             72 LAKE VIEW, EDGWARE (APPLICATION 2/19)

 

Reference: P/0654/09/GC/E – (Mr Dhirajlal Shah). Single/Two Storey Side, Single Storey Rear And Basement Extensions; Conversion Of Garage To Habitable Room; External Alterations To Rear Patio.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for a Member Site Visit.

 

(24)             6 VERNON DRIVE, STANMORE (APPLICATION 2/20)

 

Reference: P/0732/09/FOD/E – (Mr Dennis Bannister). Single/Two Storey Side Extension, Conversion Of Extended Dwellinghouse To Two Dwellinghouses, External Alterations Including The Addition Of A Bay Window On The Front Elevation And New Vehicular Access (Revised).

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous with regard to those Members who exercised their right to vote.

 

(25)             4 AYLWARDS RISE, STANMORE, HA7 3EH (APPLICATION 2/21)

 

Reference: P/4010/08/ML1/ W – (Dr Abhay Shah). Details Pursuant to: Condition 1(i-v) For (i) The Colour Of The Walls Of The House And Garage; (ii) The Colour And Make Of The Clay Roof Tiles Of The House And Garage; (iii) The Window Cills And Facings; (iv) The Ground Surfacing Material; (v) The Boundary Treatment; And Condition 9(i) For A Timetable Of The Works Required By Conditions 2 And 3 Of Planning Permission APP/M5450/C/07/2053532, Granted 24 April 2008.

 

The Vice-Chairman took the chair for the consideration of the application.

 

The Committee received representations from one objector’s representative, Mr Alan Gunne Jones, which was noted.

 

The officer referred to the previous Planning Inspector decision upon the site noting that as part of this permission an incorrect plan had been referred to.  In terms of correcting of this error a further planning application was required to be submitted to vary the agreement and this had resulted in the proposal of a generous timescale in relation to the timetable of improvement works.  He further advised that an amended proposal had been received which suggested materials and colours more consistent with the character of the street and area. He then answered Members queries on aspects of the development proposals as follows:

 

·                     the proposed 8 months period would allow for the opportunity of the planning process to be gone through, as long as the applicant acted promptly in submitting an appropriate application;

 

·                     it was not possible to place a condition upon an agreed Condition;

 

·                     he had not dealt with the application under his delegated authority as he had deemed the matter to be of such a nature that it should be considered by the Planning Committee.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the further representations received and the additional informatives reported, as amended on the Addendum.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous by those of the Committee able to vote.

 

(26)             ROXBOURNE MIDDLE SCHOOL, TORBAY ROAD, HARROW (APPLICATION 2/22)

 

Reference: P/1119/09/SM/W – (Harrow Council). Two Storey Infill Rear Extension To Main School Building (Block A) Comprising Six Replacement Classrooms And Associated Works/Facilities (Including Air Handling Unit And Ductwork On Roof).

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the conditions and informatives reported, as amended on the Addendum.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous with regard to those Members who exercised their right to vote.

 

(27)             10 OXFORD ROAD, HARROW (APPLICATION 2/23)

 

Reference: P/2888/08/ML1 – (Mr James McHugh). Conversion To Two Flats; Single And Two Storey Rear Extension; Parking At Rear.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for a Member Site Visit.

 

(28)             LAND OUTSIDE LEEFE ROBINSON P.H, UXBRIDGE ROAD, STANMORE (APPLICATION 5/01)

 

Reference: P/1028/09/GL/C – (Telefonica O2 UK Ltd). Replacement Of 12m High Telecommunications Monopole Incorporating 3No. Shrouded Antennas With A 12.5m High Telecommunications Monopole Of Increased Diameter Incorporating 3No. Shrouded Antennas; One Additional Equipment Cabinet And Associated Development.

 

During the consideration of the application the Chairman advised that the Enforcement Officer would attend the next meeting of the Committee, due the extent of business to be considered at this meeting.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was unanimous with regard to those Members who exercised their right to vote.