Agenda item

Report of the Head of Planning

 

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)        North harrow assembly hall, station road, north harrow (application 1/01)

 

Reference: P/2376/08/DC3/MAJ – (BW Foundation). Demolition Of Buildings, Construction Of Community Centre Including Sports Hall, Gym, Prayer Hall For Up To 200 People, Library, Childrens Play Centre, Café/Restaurant, 24 Bed Nursing Home And 8 Flats.

 

The officer advised that the recommendation to refuse was based on three fundamental points.  Whilst the potential development of the site was welcomed and was an important community facility, it sat within the flood plain and therefore required specific tests (set out in PPS25) to be addressed. Considerable dialogue had been undertaken but unfortunately had not overcome the concerns of the Environment Agency or the London Borough of Harrow interpretation of PPS25.

The proposals would replace a benign and low key development with a considerable development that had a close relationship with residential properties.  The siting, location and coverage amounted to overdevelopment and the scale and intensity rendered the scheme unacceptable.

 

It was not to say that improvement to the facility was unacceptable or that a form of development could not take place if it overcame the concerns outlined in the report but the proposed scheme was unacceptable.

 

In response to a question, the officer advised that extensive discussions had taken place with the Environmental Agency including a meeting the previous day. The proposal needed a fairly fundamental review if matters of flood risk were to be fully addressed.

 

Members stated that they were pleased that the Committee had deferred the application in order to explore what could be done to remedy the planning concerns but three fundamental issues remained.    

 

DECISION:  REFUSED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans for the following reasons:

 

1.                   The proposed development, by reason of failing to address all of the requirements of the exception test of Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25), would result in an unsafe development in an area with a high probability of flooding and is likely to result in flood risk elsewhere contrary to PPS25, policy 4A.12 of the London Plan 2008 and policy EP11 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan 2004.

 

2.                   The proposed development, by reason of excessive bulk, massing and footprint, would appear unduly bulky, obtrusive, overbearing and over dominant and would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of neighboring occupiers at numbers 49, 51, 53 and 55 Cumberland Road and number 38 Canterbury Road contrary to policies 4B.1 of the London Plan 2008, D4, and D5 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan 2004, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Designing New Development (March 2003) and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Extensions a Householders Guide (March 2008).

 

3.                   The proposed development, by reason of excessive site coverage by buildings, hard-surfaced areas and increase in on-street parking with associated disturbance and general activity, lack of green space and loss of trees, would be an over-intensive use, and amount to an overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of neighboring residential amenity, the free flow and safety of vehicular traffic and pedestrians on the public highway and to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies 4B.1 of The London Plan 2008, D4, D5, D9, D10, T6, T13 and EP25 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan 2004, Supplementary Planning Guidance Designing New Development (March 2003) and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Extensions a Householders Guide (March 2008).

 

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

 

(2)        ROYAL NATIONAL ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL, STANMORE (application 1/02)

 

Reference: P/0963/09/RH/MAJ –(RNOH Trust & Ronald McDonald House Charities). Demolition Of Graham Hill Unit And Construction Of Three Storey Ronald Mcdonald House (Sui Generis).

 

The officer advised that a response to consultation on the application by the Mayor of London had been received that afternoon. There were a number of issues that the Mayor had raised relating to the policy justification provided in support of the development and detailed design matters.

 

Members were of the view that consideration of the application should be deferred to seek more clarification and discussion in the light of comments from the Greater London Authority.

 

DECISION:  DEFFERED for further clarification and discussion in the light of comments from the Greater London Authority.

 

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

 

(3)        93 & FORMER MORTUARY AND PARKS DEPOSIT SITE, PEEL ROAD, WEALDSTONE (application 1/03)

 

Reference: P/1292/09/SL/MAJ – (Forest Whitmore Limited). Revised Application: Redevelopment Of 46 Affordable Housing Units [34 Flats And 12 Houses] In 3 no. X Three?Storey And Four-Storey Blocks, New Home Zone, Access Off Peel Road, 36 Surface Car Parking Spaces [Including 4 Disabled], 46 Cycle Spaces, Private And Communal Garden Space, Associated Landscaping And Refuse Bin Storage [Resident Permit Restricted].

 

In response to a question, the officer advised that precise definitions would be included in the Section 106 Agreement to secure the tenure mix proposed by officers and this would prevent the developer from unilaterally changing the intermediate housing to social rented units.  Should the developer wish to amend the proposed mix of housing tenure, an application for a variation of the Section 106 legal agreement would have to be made to the Council and the application would be brought to the Committee for reconsideration.

 

The Committee considered it important to implement a reasonable balance of tenures in order to maintain a sustainable community, particularly for larger developments.  In response, the officer stated that there were policies in the Unitary Development Plan and London Plan which aimed to secure a balanced mix of dwelling types within new development. Further information could be provided on forecast trends and methods of a reasonable proportionate response to ensure a sustainable community.

 

Further information could be provided to the Committee on the creation of mixed tenure development if required.

 

DECISION:  DEFER for further consideration.

 

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

 

(4)        HARROW CENTRAL MOSQUE, 24-34 STATION ROAD, HARROW (application 1/04)

 

Reference: P/0338/09 – (Harrow Central Mosque & Islamic Centre). Retention And Completion Of Mosque With Various Related Ancillary Activities

 

The Committee received representations from two objectors, Helen Webster and Philippa Cooper, and the Applicant (Nigel Moor) which were noted.

 

In presenting his report, the officer advised that efforts had been made to balance interests carefully, to fulfill the needs for worship alongside protecting the legitimate amenity needs

 

The attention of the Committee was drawn to the addendum sheet which set out proposed controls, particularly with regard to the hours of use and management of the extended use.  The legal agreement to be completed within six month of the Planning Committee meeting would include the following:

 

i)                    Use of 36-38 Station Road

Within one month of the completion and beneficial occupation of the new development [unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director of Planning] to cease use of 36-38 Station Road as an operational Mosque.

 

ii)                  Removal of extensions to 36-38 Station Road

Within one month of the completion and beneficial occupation of the new development [unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director of Planning] to remove the single-storey rear projection / structure to the rear of the single-storey rear extension at 36-38 Station Road, and shall not be used for any other purpose within Class D1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 [with Amendments].

 

iii)                Affordable housing

Within six months of the completion and beneficial occupation of the new development [unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director of Planning] that 36-38 Station Road shall be brought into use for affordable housing as defined in the London Plan 2008 and Harrow’s Unitary Development Plan 2004 whether by conversion or redevelopment [to be approved through the submission of a planning application], to be managed by a Registered Social Landlord, subject to a nomination agreement with Harrow Council.

 

iv)                 Hours of operation

The premises shall not be used for any other function or assembly before 0730 hrs and after 2200 hrs except: a) in line with a religious calendar submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Planning on an annual basis prior to the commencement of that religious calendar.  Any changes to the submitted and approved religious calendar would require the further written agreement of the Director of Planning.

 

b)         with the prior written approval of the Director of Planning where the applicant has given not less than two months notice of an event occurring after 22.00hrs

 

v)                   Car parking

A contribution of up to £15,000 towards the cost of the survey, public consultation and, if required, the modification of the CPZ;

 

vi)                 Legal fees

Payment of Harrow Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the legal agreement.

 

vii)               Planning administration fee

Payment of £750.00 administration fee for the monitoring of and compliance with this agreement.

 

It was noted that the Controlled Parking Zone was not a matter for the Planning Department or the Planning Committee but should an issue arise the Applicant would make a contribution should there be a need to amend the existing CPZ.

 

In response to a question, the officers advised that any breaches of planning control would be brought to the attention of the Council and an enforcement investigation would be undertaken.  If a breach of S106 took place it would be a contract breach and would be remedied through the courts.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the completion of a legal agreement and the conditions and informatives reported, as amended by the Addendum and the amendment of Condition 10 to require the agreement of Transport for London to the Travel Plan.

 

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

 

(5)        46 CHURCH ROAD, STANMORE (application 2/01)

 

Reference: P/0439/09/NR/E -  (Mr Michael Trainis). Demolition Of Existing Bakery Building; Proposed Replacement Detached Two Storey Building To Provide Garages On Ground Floor With Offices (Class B1) Over.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the conditions and informatives reported.

 

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

 

(6)        48 LADY AYLESFORD AVENUE, STANMORE (application 2/02)

 

Reference: P/0830/09/FOD/E – (Mr Aron Sloma). Single Storey Rear Extension With Basement.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for a Member Site Visit.

 

(7)        24 GORDON AVENUE, STANMORE (application 2/03)

 

Reference: P/0556/09/FOD/E -  (Mr & Mrs Colley). Detached Single/Two-Storey Dwellinghouse In Side Garden.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for a Member Site Visit.

 

(8)        13 HARROW VIEW, HARROW (application 2/04)

 

Reference: P/0520/09/AT/C – (Mr Roy Gooder). Conversion Of Dwellinghouse To Three Flats; External Alterations.

 

The Committee received a representation from one objector, Yvonne Nour, which was noted.

 

It was noted that the previous application had been revised to replace two one bedroom flats on the ground floor with two studio flats.

 

In response to a question, it was noted that the Council did not have any control over the number of people occupying a studio flat.

 

The Committee was of the opinion that the reasons for the refusal of the previous application had not been fully addressed. 

 

DECISION:  REFUSED by reason that the proposed development would give rise to an over-intensive use of this site, by reason of the number of units proposed, and would result in an unreasonable increase in residential activity and associated disturbance, to the detriment of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and character of the locality, contrary to Harrow Unitary Development Plan (2004) Policies D4 and D5.

 

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

 

(9)        294 UXBRIDGE ROAD, HATCH END (application 2/05)

 

Reference: P/0555/09/RH/MAJ – (Mr A Surace). Retention of Change Of Use Of Part Of Ground Floor Shop (Class A1 Use) To Restaurant (Class A3 Use) With Extract Flue On Rear Elevation.

 

The Committee received a representation from one objector, Peter Jacques, which was noted.

 

Members sought clarification as to whether the entire premises was a restaurant and whether the report was correct in stating that the food sold in the shop would be cold.  The officer indicated that clarity as to what activity was to be regularised was required.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for clarification as to the change of use to be retained.

 

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

 

(10)       WEALD MIDDLE SCHOOL, ROBIN HOOD DRIVE, HARROW WEALD (application 2/06)

 

Reference: P/1120/09/GL/C – (Harrow Council). Single Storey Extensions To Middle School Building; 2.4m High Metal Mesh Fencing With 2.1m High Entrance Gate On South Elevation;  External Alterations.

 

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, subject to the conditions and informatives reported.

 

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

 

(11)       1 BELLFIELD AVENUE, HARROW (application 2/07)

 

Reference: P/0163/09/AT/C – (Mr Adrian Thomas O’Mally). Conservation Area Consent: Demolition Of Existing Bungalow And Construction Of New Two Storey Dwelling.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED Conservation Area Consent for the demolition described in the application and submitted plans.

 

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

 

(12)       1 BELLFIELD AVENUE, HARROW (application 2/08)

 

Reference: P/0444/09/AT/C – (Mr Adrian Thomas O’Mally). Detached Two Storey Dwellinghouse With Basement And Habitable Roofspace; Demolition Of Existing Bungalow

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the conditions and informatives reported.

 

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

 

(13)       90 KINGSFIELD AVENUE, HARROW (application 2/09)

 

Reference: P/0877/09/LM/C – (MrKamal Rafique). Retention Of Single Storey Side To Rear Extension With Proposed Modification To Roof Height

 

The Committee received a representation from one objector, Shambhu Gupta, which was noted.

 

Members had undertaken a site visit regarding the application.  The Committee discussed whether the construction, that was not in compliance with the previous planning permission, would do harm and whether an objection was sustainable.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to the conditions and informatives reported.

 

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

 

Councillor Husain Akhtar, Marilyn Ashton, Don Billson, Julia Merison and Joyce Nickolay as having supported the grant,

 

Councillors Mrinal Choudhury, Thaya Idaikkadar and Jerry Miles abstained.

 

(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

 

The officer introduced the report noting that this matter had been deferred from the June meeting in order to seek revisions to the design. The design had been revised to improve the appearance of the building.

 

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 subject to the conditions and informatives reported.

 

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

 

(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:  GRANTED Listed Building Consent for the demolition described in the application and submitted plans.

 

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

 

(16)       72 LAKE VIEW, EDGWARE (application 2/12)

 

Reference: P/0654/09/FOD/E – (DS Squared Architects – Mr. Dipesh Patel). Single/Two Storey Side, Single Storey Rear And Basement Extensions; Conversion Of Garage To Habitable Room; External Alterations To Rear Patio

 

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.

 

(17)       10 OXFORD ROAD, HARROW (application 2/13)

 

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

 

In discussing the Application, Members expressed concern at the lack of wheelchair access to the ground floor flat.

 

DECISION:  REFUSED, the proposed development by reason of the layout, with the ground floor flat being accessed by the side door, does not comply with Lifetime Homes Standards, because of the unsuitability of the side entrance for wheelchair access, contrary to the Harrow’s Accessible Homes SPD and London Plan policy 3A.5.

 

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

 

Councillor Husain Akhtar, Marilyn Ashton, Don Billson, Julia Merison and Joyce Nickolay as having supported the grant,

 

Councillors Mrinal Choudhury  and Jerry Miles abstained.

 

Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar voted against refusal.

 

(18)       ST ANN’S SHOPPING CENTRE, ST ANN’S ROAD (application 2/14)

 

Reference: P/1440/09/RH/MAJ – (Sven Schmidt). Temporary Permission For German Christmas Market From 21^st November 2009 To 31^st December 2009 Including Installation Of Temporary Stalls

 

DECISION:  GRANTED temporary permission for German Christmas Market from 21 November 2009 to 31 December 2009 including installation of temporary stalls.

 

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

 

(19)       55 GORDON AVENUE, STANMORE (application 2/15)

 

Reference: P/0130/09/ML1/E – (Banner Homes Ltd, Mr Neil Cottrell). Demolition Of Existing Building And Redevelopment To Provide Four Terraced Two Storey Houses With Rooms In Roofspace Fronting Gordon Avenue With Parking And Pergolas At Front Accessed From Weymouth Walk

 

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.

 

(20)       224 HIGH ROAD, HARROW WEALD (application 2/16)

 

Reference: P/0258/09/RH/MAJ – (Mr Mani Khiroya). Part Two And Part Three Storey Building Comprising Eight Flats With Associated Car Parking; Landscaping And Widening Of Vehicle Access To High Road

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for a Member Site Visit

 

(21)       LAND AT ROYAL NATIONAL ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL, BROCKLEY HILL, STANMORE (application 3/01)

 

Reference: P/0856/09/NR/E – (MrPaavan Popat). Detached Three Storey Dwelling House With Basement, Use Of Vine Cottage As Triple Garage, Store And Residential Unit For Caretaker With External Alterations, Demolition Of All Other Buildings On The Site, Access From Brockley Hill

 

The Vice-Chairman took the Chair.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for a Member Site Visit

 

(22)       BOTWELL COURT, 118 HEADSTONE ROAD, HARROW (application 3/02)

 

Reference: P/0763/09/GL/C - Mr K Sabaratnam. Provision Of Two Flats Within Mansard Roof Space Together With Roof Lights To Front And Rear Roof Slopes

 

DECISION:  REFUSE permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, for the following reasons:

 

1)                   The proposal, by reason of an excessive number of velux rooflights both to the front and rear elevations, with regard to the design of the roof, would appear visually obtrusive and would detract from the established pattern and character of the existing development in the vicinity and would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the nearby occupiers, contrary to policy D4 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (2004).

 

2)                   The two flats, which would be created by the use of the roofspace, would afford substandard accommodation to the detriment of the residential amenities of the future occupiers thereof and, in the absence of easy access to the upper floor and the fact that these flats would be located on the fourth floor, would fail to meet the requirements of Lifetime Homes Standards contrary to policies D4 and C16 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (2004) and Supplementary Planning Document, Accessible Homes (2006).

 

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