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.

 

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

 

(1)        ELIOT DRIVE, DRINKWATER ROAD & COLES CRESCENT, RAYNERS LANE ESTATE, HARROW, HA2 0TR (APPLICATION 1/01)

 

            Reference: P/1905/09/RH/MAJ – (Home Group). Construction of 135 Residential Dwellings as Part of the Rayners Lane Estate Regeneration Comprising 5 X 5 Bed Houses 27 X 4 Bed Houses 46 X 3 Bed Houses 41 X 2 Bed Flats and 16 X 1 Bed Flats; New Access Road Re-Aligned Footpaths Provision of 157 Car Parking Spaces.

 

            DECISION:  DEFERRED for a Member Site Visit.

 

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

 

(2)        PRINCE EDWARDS PLAYING FIELDS, ST DAVID’S DRIVE, EDGWARE (APPLICATION 1/02)

 

            Reference: P/2022/09/RH/MAJ – (Football First). Variation of Condition 18 (External Lighting) Pursuant to Planning Permission Ref: P/0002/07/CFU Dated 8 April 2008 From ‘All Exterior Lighting Other Than Floodlighting Shall Be Extinguished on Any Day Not Later Than 22:30 Hours, Except Lighting Not More Than 1M Above the Finished Road or Car Park Level That Shall Be Extinguished Not More Than 60 Minutes After The End of Any Match or Event to ‘All Exterior Lighting Other Than Floodlighting Shall be Extinguished on Any Day Not Later Than 22:30 Hours, Except Lighting Not More Than 1M Above the Finished Road and Car Park Level That Shall be Extinguished Not More Than 60 Minutes After the End of Any Match or Event’.

 

            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.

 

(3)        THE VAUGHAN CENTRE, WILSON GARDENS, HARROW, HA1 4EA (APPLICATION 1/03)

 

            Reference: P/1733/09/SL/MAJ – (Twinlock Investment Ltd). Construction of Part Two / Part Three-Storey Development Comprising 13 No. X Two Bedroom Flats, Landscaping, Refuse, Cycle Storage and Parking.

 

The Committee received representations from two Members which were noted.

 

An officer provided an explanation of the site to the Committee and highlighted that initially the elevations had been considered too bulky.  As a consequence the plans had been revised to reflect the design and elevations of the street scene.  As part of the application, a Section 106 contribution had been proposed which would see a contribution of approximately £80,000 to various heads of terms as set out in the report and addendum.

 

During the discussion on this item, Members raised a number of queries, which officers responded to as follows:

 

·                     There was a lot of discussion regarding a proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the area in question.  The concern that any decision by the Committee would set a precedent for any decision on the CPZ was unfounded.  The planning application was a separate matter.  The Heads of Terms for the proposed scheme provided that those persons residing in the proposed development would be ineligible for resident parking permits in the event that a Controlled Parking Zone was implemented in the area.

 

·                     A decision on the application was not premature ahead of a decision on the CPZ.  A determination of the planning application did not have a prejudicial outcome on the CPZ, as the making of a CPZ was subject to a distinctly separate regulatory regime involving a process of consulting residents.

 

·                     The applicant had proposed car parking arrangements within the development.  This amounted to 13 in total.

 

·                     The application design had been amended. Consultation had taken place on the revised design as outlined in the addendum.

 

·                     Any overlooking would be within normal and acceptable parameters as is typical in such a locality and therefore would not be detrimental.

 

The Chairman emphasised that each application had to be judged on its own merits.  This Committee was only concerned with the Planning merits of the application. Issues relating to any proposed Controlled Parking Zone within the area were a matter for the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel. Planning and the making of a CPZ were two separate regimes.  Accordingly it was not premature to determine a planning application pending a decision on whether or not a CPZ would be implemented in the future.

 

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

 

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

 

(4)        PARK HIGH SCHOOL, THISTLECROFT GARDENS, STANMORE, HA7 1PZ (APPLICATION 1/04)

 

            Reference: P/2161/09/SL/MAJ – (London Borough of Harrow). Two-Storey Temporary Building to Provide 9 Classrooms and Ancillary Accommodation, Single Storey Detached Building to Provide Sports Changing Accommodation and New Sub Station.

 

            DECISION:  DEFERRED at the request of officers, to enable further consideration of the proposal.

 

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

 

(5)        NOWER HILL HIGH SCHOOL, PINNER ROAD, HARROW, HA5 5RP (APPLICATION 1/05)

 

            Reference: P/2156/09/SL/MAJ – (London Borough of Harrow). 2No. X Two Storey Temporary Modular Buildings to Provide Classrooms as Part of Harrow’s Year 7 Transfer Programme and Single Storey Extension to the Dining Room.

 

            An officer reported that the application was considered not to have a detrimental effect on residential amenity.

 

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)        COPSE FARM, BROOKSHILL DRIVE, HARROW (APPLICATION 1/06)

 

            Reference: P/1429/09/DC3/MAJ – (Stephen Wax). Demolition of all Existing Non-Locally Listed Buildings; Erection of Two Storey Dwelling House at Copse Farm; Part Redevelopment of Brookshill Farm Courtyard Including Demolition of Locally Listed Stable and Farm Office Buildings and Replacement with Four Additional Staff Dwelling Houses; Retention and Restoration of Locally Listed Dwelling Houses (Copse Farm House, Dairy and Farm Cottages) and Locally Listed Barn and Hayloft; Erection and Alteration of Agricultural Buildings in Brookshill Farm Courtyard; Replacement of Locally Listed Stable Building in Copse Farm Courtyard; New Access Drive; Creation of Temporary Footpath; Erection of Tennis Pavilion; Associated Landscape Proposals.

 

The Committee received a representation from a Member which was noted.

 

An officer reported that the proposed development involved wholesale regeneration and redevelopment of 2 existing farm complexes within the Green Belt.  The officer explained that Members of the Committee had been on a site visit and it was noted that development within the Green Belt was subject to policy considerations, which sought to guard against inappropriate development unless very special circumstances override the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  Within this proposal there were aspects of development which were considered appropriate and some considered inappropriate, when assessed against relevant policy.  However officers considered that where certain parts of the proposed development were assessed to be inappropriate, there were very special circumstances to justify the departure from the policy.  These very special circumstances included the refurbishment and partial development of the farm complexes and the removal of inappropriate buildings.

 

            The officer explained that the proposed development would be subject to a Section 106 agreement to control the future use of the six residential units in the Brookshill Farm Complex.  The officer also referred the Committee to the addendum, where a number of suggested changes had been proposed.

 

            During the discussion on this item, Members raised a number of queries, which officers responded to as follows:

 

·                     The existing dwellings and type of lighting would ensure that glare from any outdoor lights and would be managed up to a point.  Proposed condition 22 would also ensure that details of lighting of the tennis court would have to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

·                     The height of the lighting poles to tennis courts would ensure that there was no light spillage beyond relevant boundaries.

 

·                     Officers were satisfied that the energy systems proposed were possible and a condition addressing this issue had been proposed accordingly.

 

·                     Although views from neighbouring properties would be affected, it was considered that this would not be so harmful or have a dramatic effect.

 

·                     It was anticipated that there would be agricultural use on the site.

 

·                     The Council had a Section 106 monitoring officer, whose role it was to control compliance with Section 106 agreements.

 

·                     Officers had conducted an arboricultural survey of trees near the proposed buildings and the tree officer had indicated they had no concerns subject to conditions.

 

The Chairman commented that although there were disadvantages associated with the proposed development, there were very special circumstances in this case to justify supporting the proposal.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, as amended in the addendum, subject to the completion of a legal agreement, referral to the Mayor of London and Government Office for London, and the conditions and informatives reported.

 

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

 

(7)        COPSE FARM, BROOKSHILL DRIVE, HARROW (APPLICATION 1/07)

 

            Reference: P/1430/09/DC3/MAJ – (Stephen Wax). Conservation Area consent: Demolition of all existing non-locally listed buildings and existing locally listed stable building at Copse Farm and Farm Office and Stable Buildings at Brookshill Farm (Copse Farm House, Dairy Cottage, Farm Cottage and Hayloft Retained).

 

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

 

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

 

(8)        168 STATION ROAD, HARROW, HA1 2RH (APPLICATION 2/01)

 

            Reference: P/1713/09/LM/C – (William Hill Organisation Ltd). Change of Use of Shop (Class A1) to Betting Office (Class A2).

 

            An officer explained that Policy EM17 set out a number of criteria that had to be met in order for a change of use from retail to non retail to be permitted.  Officers believed that the proposed change of use was consistent with this policy.

 

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.

 

(9)        96 VANCOUVER ROAD, EDGWARE, HA8 5DF (APPLICATION 2/02)

 

            Reference: P/1286/09/ML1 - (Mr E Seliger). Single and Two Storey Side Extension; Conversion to Two Flats; Widening of Vehicular Access.

 

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

 

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

 

(10)       ROOKS HEATH HIGH SCHOOL, EASTCOTE LANE, HA2 9AG (APPLICATION 2/03)

 

            Reference: P/2158/09/SM/W – (Harrow Council). Two Temporary Single Storey Modular Buildings (Total Internal Floor Area of 297 Cubic Metres).

 

            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.

 

(11)       16B COLLEGE ROAD, HARROW, HA1 1BE (APPLICATION 2/04)

 

            Reference: P/1639/09/HG/W – (Mr Erdogan Dagdelen). Change of Use From Nightclub / Restaurant (Use Classes D2/A3) to Restaurant / Takeaway (Use Classes A3/A5).

 

            An officer reported that there had been objections raised to the application.  However officers believed that the application overcame these objections.  In response to a question by the Chairman, the officer confirmed that most of the objectors lived in the locality of the proposed development.

 

            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.

 

(12)       4 AYLWARDS RISE, STANMORE, HA7 3EH (APPLICATION 2/05)

 

            Reference: P/1664/09/ML1 – (Dr Abhay Shah). Installation of Two Brick Pillars at Entrance to Driveway, Involving Removal of Existing Gate Post and Brick Pier.

 

            The Vice Chairman took the Chair for the consideration of this application.

 

            An officer provided an outline of the application and suggested that Condition 2 should be amended.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the conditions and informatives reported and an amendment to Condition 2 to read:

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A to Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no gates shall be fixed to the structures hereby approved.

 

REASON:  In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to ensure the free flow of traffic and highway safety in Aylwards Rise.

 

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

 

(13)       CANONS HIGH SCHOOL, SHALDON ROAD, EDGWARE, HA8 7NT (APPLICATION 2/06)

 

            Reference: P/2162/09/FOD/E – (Mr Simon Bird). Two Single Storey Temporary Buildings to Provide Classroom and Dance Studio with Ancillary Accommodation (3 Years), Two Single Storey extensions to Dining Hall.

 

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

 

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

 

(14)       CEDARS HALL, CHICHELEY ROAD, HARROW, HA3 6QL (APPLICATION 2/07)

 

            Reference: P/1829/09/LM/C – (Kids Can Achieve). Change of Use from Community Centre (Class D2 use) to Centre for Child / Family Support and Community Facilities (Class D1 / D2 Use); Single Storey Side Extension; Side Canopy; Insertion of Mezzanine Floor; Part Replacement of Perimeter Fence with 2.4M High Fence and Gates; Off Street Vehicle, Motorcycle and Bicycle Parking.

 

The Committee received a representation from a Member which was noted.

 

            An officer explained that the application involved a change of use from a community centre to a mixed use providing family and community facilities.  The property was currently in a state of disrepair and no objections had been raised.

 

            The Chairman commented that the proposal involved a good design and was well presented.

 

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.

 

(15)       LAND AT REAR OF 176 – 182 HARROW VIEW, HARROW, ADJACENT TO NO.2 BOLTON ROAD (APPLICATION 2/08)

 

            Reference: P/1324/09/GL/C – (Mr Aalok Soni). Retention of Two Storey Houses with Accommodation in Roofspace; Access and Parking (Amendment to Previously Approved Application P/2759/07/DFU).

 

            DECISION:  DEFERRED at the request of officers, to enable further consideration of the proposal.

 

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

 

(16)       UNIT 3, BALLARDS MEWS, HIGH STREET, EDGWARE, HA8 7BZ (APPLICATION 2/09)

 

            Reference: P/4099/08/ML/E – (Peter Rudge). Two External Flues / Ducts on Southern Roofslope of Spray Shop Building (Revised).

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED at the request of officers, to enable further consideration of the proposal.

 

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

 

(17)       183 WHITCHURCH LANE, EDGWARE, HA8 6QT (APPLICATION 2/10)

 

            Reference: P/1480/09/NR/E – By Wood Homes (Stanmore) Ltd. Single and Two Storey Side and Single Storey Rear Extensions, Rear Dormer, Conversion to Four Flats, External Alterations.

 

            The Committee received representations from an objector, Mr Abe Hayeem and the applicant’s agent, which were noted.

 

            An officer explained that a previous application on this site had been refused. Upon an appeal, the Planning Inspector had dismissed it.  However in dismissing the appeal, the Planning Inspector had only found fault with the scale of the extensions.  In light of this, the revised proposal was considered to overcome the concerns of the Planning Inspector.

 

            In response to questions from Members of the Committee, the officer confirmed that the cat slide roof was 2.3 metres closer to the park and that 4 car parking spaces had been provided at the front of the property.

 

            The Chairman explained that the Planning Inspector’s considerations carried significant weight.  However the current proposal had involved redesigning the house with a cat slide roof 2.3 metres closer towards the park.  This had created more scale to the development and would impact upon the openness of the park. It was critical that the proposal should preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the adjacent Canons Park Estate Conservation Area.

 

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

 

            The proposed extensions, by reason of scale, unsatisfactory and incongruous design and prominent siting would have a detrimental impact on the character of and appearance of the openness and character of the adjacent Historic Park and Metropolitan Open Land, would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the neighbouring Canons Park Estate Conservation Area, contrary to policies D4, D12, D15, D18 and EP43 of the HUDP (2004).

 

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

 

            Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Don Billson, Thaya Idaikkadar, Ashok Kulkarni, Julia Merison, Jerry Miles and Joyce Nickolay as having voted for the decision to refuse the application.

 

            Councillor Keith Ferry as having voted against the decision to refuse the application.

 

(18)       28 – 36 SHAFTESBURY CIRCLE, SOUTH HARROW, HA2 0AT (APPLICATION 2/11)

 

            Reference: P/1718/09/HG/W – (Tesco Stores Ltd). Proposed Externally Illuminated Double Sided Totem Sign at South East Corner Fronting Shaftesbury Avenue; Retention of Four Non-Illuminated Vehicle Entrance / Exit Signs and Three Non-Illuminated Signs Within the Car Park.

 

            An officer reported that the site had been previously granted permission for an A1 use in 2008 which was in operation.  A large advertisement sign proposed for the main flank wall of the building had been deleted from the application at the request of officers.  Objections had been raised on the proposals, but the majority of these objections were not material planning considerations.

 

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.

 

(19)       28 – 36 SHAFTESBURY CIRCLE, SOUTH HARROW, HA2 0AT (APPLICATION 2/12)

 

            Reference: P/1721/09/HG/W – (Tesco Stores Ltd). Installation of Cash Machine (ATM) on Front Elevation.

 

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.

 

(20)       28 – 36 SHAFTESBURY CIRCLE, SOUTH HARROW, HA2 0AT (APPLICATION 2/13)

 

            Reference: P/1719/09/HG/W – (Tesco Stores Ltd). Internally Illuminated Fascia Signs on the Front and Rear Elevations and Internally Illuminated Projecting Sign on the Front Elevation.

 

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.

 

(21)       28 – 36 SHAFTESBURY CIRCLE, SOUTH HARROW, HA2 0AT (APPLICATION 2/14)

 

            Reference: P/1722/09/HG/W – (Tesco Stores Ltd). Retention of Two Shopfronts on the Front and Rear Elevations and External Alterations to the Rear Elevation.

 

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.

 

(22)       28 – 36 SHAFTESBURY CIRCLE, SOUTH HARROW, HA2 0AT (APPLICATION 2/15)

 

            Reference: P/1723/09/HG/W – (Tesco Stores Ltd). Retention of Installation of 7 Illuminated Bollards Adjacent to Southern Site Boundary; A Combination of 7 Drop Down and Fixed Bollards Fronting Shaftesbury Avenue and 6 Bollards Along the Rear of the Building.

 

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.

 

(23)       28 – 36 SHAFTESBURY CIRCLE, SOUTH HARROW, HA2 0AT (APPLICATION 2/16)

 

            Reference: P/1724/09/HG/W – (Tesco Stores Ltd). Retention of Installation of Plant Equipment and a Close Board Timber Screen to the Rear.

 

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.

 

(24)       BENTLEY WOOD HIGH SCHOOL, BINYON CRESCENT, STANMORE, HA7 3NA (APPLICATION 2/17)

 

Reference: P/2517/09/OS/E – (Mr Simon Bird). Single Storey Temporary Building to Provide 3 Classrooms (3 Years).

 

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

 

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

 

(25)       84 STANMORE HILL, STANMORE, HA7 3BU (APPLICATION 3/01)

 

            Reference: P/1278/09/ML/E – (Mr and Mrs G Adebayo). Construction of Third Floor (Fourth Storey) to Existing House (Revised).

 

            An officer reported that Members of the Committee had conducted a site visit for this application.  The proposal involved the construction of an additional floor to provide a fourth storey.  The officer drew the Committee’s attention to the previous reasons for refusal on a previous application for development.  Having assessed the new proposal, officers believed that the previous reasons for refusal were still valid.  Officers were further concerned about the proposal having a detrimental effect in terms of overlooking.

 

            The Chairman commented that, in her view, she did not believe the application had a detrimental effect on views from the Conservation Area.  Although views from the front of the development had been improved, the views from the back were slightly worse than previously proposed.  The stairwell and window would also cause an unreasonable amount of overlooking.

 

            DECISION:  REFUSE permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, for the reasons reported and an amendment to reason 1 to read:

 

            The proposed third floor by reason of its height, scale and bulk, would result in a visually obtrusive and incongruous form of development to the rear, which would be detrimental to the host property, the attached property and would detract from the character of the Green Belt and the Harrow Weald Ridge Area of Special Character, contrary to the provisions of PPG2, London Plan Policy 3D.8 and policies EP31, EP32, EP34 and D4 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (2004) and Supplementary Planning Guidance – Extensions:  A Householders Guide (2008).

 

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

 

(26)       58 TINTERN WAY, HARROW, HA2 0SA (APPLICATION 3/02)

 

            Reference: P/1447/09/SM/W – (Mrs Bina Thakrar). One Illuminated Sign in the Front Window and One Non-Illuminated Banner Sign Above Front Window of Semi Detached Dwellinghouse for Home Beauty Business.

 

            DECISION:  REFUSE permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, for the reason reported

 

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

 

(27)       CHESTERFIELD HOUSE, 9 PARK LANE, WEMBLEY, HA9 7RH (APPLICATION 4/01)

 

            Reference: P/2008/09 – (London Borough of Brent). Consultation from Neighbouring Borough: Demolition of Existing Building and Erection of A 29 Storey Building Comprising Leisure Facilities Including Swimming Pool (Use Class D2) and Vehicular / Cycle Parking at Basement Levels, Restaurants and Cafes (Use Class A3) and Retail (Use Class A1) at Ground Floor Level, Restaurant (Use Class A3) and Office Space (Use Class B1) at First Floor Level, 815 Hotel Rooms (Use Class C1) at Upper Floor Levels, Green Roofs and Amenity Terraces at Roof Level and Associated Landscaping to Site.

 

            The Committee expressed its concern on the proposed development and the effect it would have on views, from different vantage points, from Harrow to Wembley Stadium.

 

            DECISION:  INFORM the London Borough of Brent that Harrow Council raises an objection to this application and that authority be delegated to the Divisional Director, Planning, in consultation with the Chairman and Nominated Member to write to the Mayor of London expressing the Committee’s concern at the proposed development.