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, Cycle Parking And Bin Stores.

 

An officer reported that the Members of the Committee had conducted a site visit for this application.  In response to questions from Members, the officer outlined the additional landscaping proposals submitted as a result of concerns raised by officers.

 

An additional condition regarding the materials for the proposed windows and doors was agreed.

 

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 and an additional condition to read:

 

Notwithstanding the details shown on the proposed external materials schedule Rev A (26-11-09) submitted 26 November 2009, and drawing numbers P-11 rev B, P-12 rev C, P-13 rev C, P14 rev C, P-17 rev B, P-18 rev B, P-19 rev B, P-20 rev B, P-33 Rev A, P-34 Rev A, P-35 Rev A, P-36 Rev A, P-48 Rev A, P-49 Rev A, P-50 Rev A, P-51 Rev A, P-52 Rev A, P-53 Rev A, P-54 Rev A, P-55, P-63, P-64, P-65 submitted 27 November 2009, the development hereby permitted shall not commence beyond ground level damp proof course until details of the proposed windows and doors have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained.

 

REASON:  The proposed details submitted to date do not comply with the design objectives and policy requirements of policy D4 of the Harrow Unitary Development 

 

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

 

(2)        KODAK SITE, HEADSTONE DRIVE, WEALDSTONE (APPLICATION 1/02)

 

Reference: P/1795/09/DC3/MAJ – (Land Securities and FCM Markets). Change Of Use Of Vacant Site For Temporary Open Air Market With 100 Stalls Including Ancillary Food Sales And Parking For 200 Cars.

 

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

 

·                     the applicant had discussed the extension of occupation times, as outlined in the addendum, to enable phased use of the site by traders;

 

·                     although the traffic impact consequences could not be clearly identified, temporary permission would enable suitable evidence to be gained;

 

·                     the existing surfacing on the site was compactable.  Additional hardsurfacing was not required due to the short term of use;

 

·                     a retail assessment, undertaken as part of the core strategy work, had identified that Wealdstone District Centre had reasonable vitality.  With regard to EM5 sections 4 and 5 (Employment), the evidence suggested that Wealdstone was not underperforming.  A market on the site nearby could present a new risk to vitality that could draw customers away from Wealdstone and local shops.  A five day market could have more impact than one or two days;

 

·                     information was not available at the meeting regarding the average retail vacancy rate in Harrow since the retail study;

 

·                     the Local Authority would have no control over the mix of stalls.

 

The view was expressed that a five day week use, albeit temporary, was too much. Compared to other district centres, Wealdstone was struggling and there was a risk that customers would shop at the market instead to the detriment of the local shops within the district centre.  Markets are normally held one or two days a week, five days was more typical of a shopping centre.  It was proposed and seconded that condition 7 be amended to enable two day a week use on Fridays and Saturdays.

 

It was further proposed and seconded that condition 7 be amended to enable three day a week use on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.  This was put to the vote. Councillors Idaikkadar, Choudhury and Miles did not vote on the amendment and withdrew the proposal.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED temporary use for one year subject to conditions and the addendum with an amendment to condition 7 to read:

 

The use hereby permitted shall not be open to market stall operators outside the following times:

 

(a)                 07.00 hours to 16.00 hours on Fridays

(b)                08.00 hours to 16.00 hours on Saturdays

 

In addition the use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times:

 

(a)                 08.00 hours to 15.00 hours on Fridays

(b)                09.00 hours to 15.00 hours on Saturdays

Without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.

 

REASON:  To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents, to minimize the impact and congestion on the public highway and to safeguard the vitality of the Weadstone District Centre and other existing retail shopping centres within the locality.

 

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

 

Councillors Husain Akhtar, Marilyn Ashton, Don Billson Julia Merison and Joyce Nickolay as having voted for the decision to grant the application for two days a week.

 

CouncillorsMrinal Choudhury, Thaya Idaikkadar and Jerry Miles as having abstained from the decision.

 

(3)        GOODWILL TO ALL PUBLIC HOUSE, HEADSTONE DRIVE, WEALDSTONE, HA1 4UN (APPLICATION 1/03)

 

Reference: P/0898/09/RH/MAJ – (Mr Terry O'Sullivan). Demolition Of Existing Public House And Redevelopment Of Site To Create A Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 And Part 6 New Build Apartment Building Comprising 56 Flats With Car Parking And Landscaped Courtyard.

 

It was noted that, as the applicant had chosen to appeal the non-determination of the application by the Council, the Committee was requested to form a view on how they would have been minded to determine the application had the applicant not appealed against non?determination.  In addition, the Committee was requested to delegate authority to the Divisional Director of Planning to review, if required, the Council’s reasons in the light of any new material evidence that could come forward before determination of the appeal.

 

DECISION:  That (1) had the application not been appealed under the grounds of non-determination, permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans would have been REFUSED for the reasons reported as amended on the addendum;

 

(2) authority be delegated to the Divisional Director of Planning to review the Council’s reasons in light of material evidence that may be submitted prior to determination of the appeal.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision 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.

 

An officer reported that details of the substation had been received, therefore condition 9 no longer applied.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the conditions and informatives reported and the deletion of condition 9.

 

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

 

(5)        190-194 STATION ROAD, HARROW, HA1 2RH (APPLICATION 1/05)

 

Reference: P/2132/09/DC3/MAJ – (MrFarhad Davarzan). Retention Of 12 Flats At First And Second Floor Level Above Existing Restaurant (Resident Permit Restricted).

 

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.

(6)        HARROW HIGH SCHOOL, GAYTON ROAD, HA1 2JG (APPLICATION 2/01)

 

Reference: P/2155/09/LM/C – (Harrow Council). Two Single Storey Temporary Modular Buildings With Linked Access Platform; Single Storey Extension To Dining Room.

 

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

 

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

 

REASON:  To safeguard the appearance of the locality.

 

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

 

(7)        12 HIGH STREET, WEALDSTONE, HA3 7AA (APPLICATION 2/02)

 

Reference: P/1268/09/LM/C – (Mr Pankaj Popat). Change Of Use Of Shop (Class A1) To Restaurant (Class A3); Single Storey Rear Extension.

 

A Member referred to the length of secondary frontage in non retail use at street level and requested that future such reports should, in addition, include the length of secondary frontage in use as restaurants and take?aways.

 

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.

 

(8)        STANBURN FIRST & MIDDLE SCHOOL, ABERCORN ROAD, STANMORE, HA7 2PJ (APPLICATION 2/03)

 

Reference: P/2071/09/NR/E – (Harrow Council). First Floor Rear Extension, With Demolition Of Linked Two Storey Annexe To Rear Elevation; Alterations To Fenestration At Rear

 

In response to a question, an officer confirmed that there had not been any response to the 38 consultation notifications.

 

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.

 

(9)        26 CULVER GROVE, STANMORE, HA7 2NN (APPLICATION 2/04)

 

Reference: P/1942/09/NR/E – (Mr Anil Shah). Conversion Of Dwellinghouse To Two 1 Bedroom Flats With One Parking Space

 

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.

 

(10)       WOODFIELD HOUSE, 506-508 HONEYPOT LANE, STANMORE, HA7 1LA (APPLICATION 2/05)

 

Reference: P/1675/09/NR/E – (MrRajni Patani). Change Of Use From Car Showroom, Workshop And Offices To Warehouse And Ancillary Retail Use And Offices (Sui Generis To B8/A1), With External Alterations To The Building

 

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.

 

(11)       47 DU CROS DRIVE, STANMORE, MIDDLESEX, HA7 4TL (APPLICATION 2/06)

 

Reference: P/2221/09/FOD/E – (Mr Dominick Martin). Single And Two Storey Side Extension And Single Storey Front (Porch) Extension To The Dwellinghouse

 

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)       67 THE BROADWAY, STANMORE, MIDDLESEX, HA7 4DA (APPLICATION 2/07)

 

Reference: P/2099/09/FOD/E – (Prezzo Plc). Use Of Forecourt Area For Siting Of Tables And Chairs With Planters And Surrounding Barriers In Connection With Restaurant Use.

 

The Committee noted that the applicant had agreed to restrict by condition the outdoor use of the premises to no later than 7.00 pm on every day of the week in order to have regard for the amenity of the flats in the upper floors of the building. In order to prevent noise nuisance to residents when the equipment was taken in after closing time for storage, it was agreed to amend condition two to reflect that all equipment should be put away at 7.00 pm.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, as amended in the addendum, subject to the conditions reported with an amendment to condition 2 to read:

 

Without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority, the outdoor seating area hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times: 1000 to 1900 hours every day and all outdoor equipment used in connection with the use hereby permitted shall be stored inside the building by 1900 hours.

 

REASON:  To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents, in accordance with saved policies D4, EP25 and EM25 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan.

 

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

 

(13)       BUCKINGHAM BOULANGERIE, 9 BUCKINGHAM PARADE, STANMORE, HA7 4EB (APPLICATION 2/08)

 

Reference: P/1408/09/ML1/E – (Mr Robert Simon). Use Of Forecourt Area Beneath Canopy For Siting Of Tables And Chairs With Surrounding Moveable Barriers And 3 External Electric Heaters Suspended From Roof Of Canopy.

 

Members expressed concern that, in protruding 2.55m, the seating would reach the end of the canopy at first floor level in front of the unit which would limit the amount of pavement available for pedestrians due to the location of trees.  There would be nowhere for pedestrians to walk other than very near to the roadside.

 

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

 

The development would materially and adversely affect and obstruct the free movement of pedestrians along the unbroken paved area, which abuts this well used thoroughfare located within the Stanmore District Centre, to the detriment of the amenities of the shoppers in the locality and would be incongruous, visually obtrusive and out of keeping in the street scene by reason of the scale and intensity of the proposed seating area, contrary to Harrow Unitary Development Plan policies D4 and C16.

 

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

 

Councillors Husain Akhtar, Marilyn Ashton, Don Billson, Julia Merison and Joyce Nickolay voted for the decision to refuse the application.

 

CouncillorsMrinal Choudhury, Jerry Miles and Thaya Idaikkadar voted against the decision to refuse the application.

 

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

 

Reference: P/4099/08/ML1/E – (Peter Rudge). Two External Flues On Southern Roofslope Of Spray Shop Building (Revised).

 

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

 

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

 

(15)       74 ALICIA AVENUE, HARROW, HA3 8HS (APPLICATION 2/10)

 

Reference: P/2147/09/Fod/E – (Mr Alan Webb). Two Storey Front And First Floor Side Extensions, External Alterations, Conversion To Two Dwellinghouses (Revised).

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for a Member Site Visit.

 

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

 

(16)       22E JUBILEE CLOSE, PINNER, HA5 3TB (APPLICATION 2/11)

 

Reference: P/2127/09/SB5/W – (Mr Haresh Yagnik). Erection Of Single And Two Storey Attached Dwellinghouse Including Accommodation In Loft Space With Rear Dormer And Parking.

 

It was noted that P127 instead of P2127 should be included on page 152.

 

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.

 

(17)       69 WEST END LANE, PINNER, HA5 1AF (APPLICATION 2/12)

 

Reference: P/2001/09/SB5/W – (Towers Associates). Demolition Of Nursery School Building; Replacement Two Storey Building With Habitable Roof Space Providing 6 Flats; New Vehicle Access.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for a Member Site Visit.

 

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

 

(18)       HATCH END HIGH SCHOOL HEADSTONE LANE, HARROW, HA3 6NR (APPLICATION 2/13)

 

Reference: P/2159/09/AJ/C – (Harrow Council). Temporary Modular Building (3 Years) To Provide Teaching Space For Additional Pupils.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED to allow for consultation with Sport England.

 

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

 

(19)       SHAFTESBURY SCHOOL, LONG ELMES, HARROW WEALD, HA3 6LE (APPLICATION 2/14)

 

Reference: P/2160/09/AJ/C – (Harrow Council). Temporary Modular Building To Provide Teaching Space For Additional Pupils And Demolition Of Two Existing Temporary Buildings; New Electricity Substation; Three New Car Parking Spaces.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED to allow for consultation with Sport England.

 

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

 

(20)       73 WEST END AVENUE, PINNER, HA5 1BN (APPLICATION 2/15)

 

Reference: P/3084/08/SB5/W – (Mr Adekoyejo Oduniya). Continued Use Of Building As Four Self-Contained Flats Including Side And Rear Extensions, Rear Dormer, Rooflights, Balcony Screen And Refuse Storage Area; And Landscaping, Proposed Widened Vehicle Access; External Alterations.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for a Member Site Visit.

 

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

 

(21)       1 AND 1A SILVERDALE CLOSE, NORTHOLT, UB5 4BL (APPLICATION 2/16)

 

Reference: P/2230/09/EJ/W – (Harrow Council). Continued Use Of The Ground Floor Of The Former Children’s Home (Use Class C2) As A Contact Centre (Use Class D1); Proposed Change Of Use Of First Floor From Children’s Home To Children’s Centre (Use Class D1); Single And Two Storey Front, Side And Rear Extensions And Canopy At Rear And External Alterations.

 

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.

 

(22)       CHALLINER COURT, FERN COURT, PRICE COURT & HINES COURT, RICHARDS CLOSE, HARROW (APPLICATION 2/17)

 

Reference: P/2568/09/DC3 – (Octavia Housing And Care & Harrow Churches Housing Association). Application For Non-Material Amendment To Planning Permission Reference: P/2843/08 For The Demolition Of 55 Dwellings And Construction Of 47 Unit 'Extra Care' Scheme And 29 Flats, Landscaping And Works.

 

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

 

In accordance with Committee Procedural Rule 26.1 the Chairman warned a member of the public not to interrupt proceedings.  As a result of continued interruption she then ordered his removal from the meeting room.

 

An officer introduced the report on the application for non-material amendments to the development at Richards Close.  It was noted that although there was no statutory requirement to consult on the application, consultation on the amendments had, nonetheless, taken place as a matter of good practice and to ensure that residents concerns could be addressed.

 

Members were advised that, in the light of guidance by the Department of Communities and Local Government, available subsequent to the preparation of the report, the Committee needed to be satisfied whether the proposed amendments were non?material taking into account the size and nature of the scheme.  An officer explained the differences between an application for non-material amendments and an application for minor material amendment.  The Committee was informed that a minor material amendment application can only be submitted if the planning application contains a condition which lists all the plans approved.  As there was no such condition on the applicant’s planning permission, an application for minor material amendment could not be submitted.

 

The Committee was advised that there is no statutory definition of what constitutes a non-material amendment.  However, the test often applied by the courts is whether the scale and nature of the proposed amendments would result in a development which is materially different from that originally granted planning permission.

 

Members referred to the site visit and stated that it was considered important to discuss whether all the amendments were non-material.  It was noted that the alternative was to regularise through a full planning application.

 

The Chairman read out three criterion to assist in the determination of what constituted a non-material amendment which were as follows:

 

1.                   Do the proposed changes differ in substance from the development that was granted planning permission?

 

2.                   Would acceptance of the proposed changes as non-material amendments deprive those who should have been consulted from such additional consultation (i.e. if you were dealing with the application and it was amended would you have renotified the consultees/neighbours, etc)?

 

3.                   Does the cumulative impact of a series of non-material amendments result in a development which is quite different from the original permission?

 

In considering the three points in turn, the Chairman expressed the view that the main problem was in respect of point one in that the re?location of the void meant that the building differed in substance from the development that was granted planning permission and it was her opinion that this one element of the discrepancies did not constitute a non?material amendment.  As the Council had chosen to consult the second point did not apply.  On point three there could be a case in respect of the fact that there were a number of amendments which did add up cumulatively but the main matter of substance was the void together with the less significant changes.

 

The officer advised that the Local Planning Authority has the discretion to decide whether or not the proposed amendments were material.  The Committee was also required to provide reasons for its view as there was a right of appeal.

 

The Committee was made aware of two further letters as detailed in the addendum plus the following corrections:

 

·                     Page 210 reference should be to Block B only;

 

·                     Page 212 the appraisal should also refer to gardens in Duffield Close, and clarify that number 8 Courtfield Close was 23 metres from the development (and closer than No5);

 

·                     Page 213 the change in distance was 4 metres and not 8 metres

 

In response to a question from a Member the officer stated that it would be inappropriate to use a rigid method such as a 5% footprint to identify what was a material change.

 

The Committee discussed the aspects of the application and expressed the view that, whilst the other proposed amendments were insignificant given the scale and context the proposed amendment to the void necessitated movement of a flat within the development and this was considered to be a material amendment.

 

It was proposed, seconded and agreed that the proposal to move the ground floor communal lounge and first floor void area on the western elevation of Block A towards the north was a material amendment as the change differed in substance from the development that was granted planning permission.

 

It was agreed to grant the other proposed amendments as non?material amendments to planning permission reference P/2568/09.

 

DECISION: The application for non-material amendments to planning permission reference P/2568/09 as per report and addendum be APPROVED except for the proposal to amend the ground floor communal lounge and move the first floor void area on the western elevation of Block A towards the north which was considered to be a material amendment.

 

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

 

(23)       19-23 HIGH STREET, PINNER, HA5 5PJ (APPLICATION 3/01)

 

Reference: P/2126/09/SB5/W – (Starbucks Coffee Co. (UK) Ltd). Continued Use Of Coffee Shop (Class A1/A3).

 

It was noted that the Council had received notice that the applicant had appealed the non-determination of the application.

 

An officer advised that if the application was granted it would result in a breach of the policy EM16 regarding floorspace of non-retail frontage.

 

DECISION:  The Committee resolves that, had the application not been appealed under the grounds of non?determination, it would have been refused for the following reason:

 

The proposal results in an unacceptable loss of retail frontage and a harmful concentration of non-retail uses within this part of the Pinner District Centre, leading to a loss of vitality of the shopping parade and the Pinner District Centre as a whole, contrary to saved policy EM16 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (2004).

 

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

 

(24)       79 COLLEGE ROAD, HARROW, HA1 1FB (HARROW ON THE HILL STATION) (APPLICATION 5/01)

 

Reference: P/2498/09/GL/C – (Transport For London). Prior Approval Of Detailed Plans And Specifications For Formation Of A High Level Pedestrian Walkway (Bridge) To Allow Access From Crew Facilities To Station Platforms; New Shopfront To Ground Floor Retail Unit, Alterations To The Rear Of Retail Unit, Including Extract Flue, In Association With Refurbishment For Staff Accommodation.

 

DECISION:  That (1) prior approval is required;

 

(2)  GRANT prior approval for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

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

 

(25)       LAND AT JUNCTION OF HAILSHAM DRIVE AND HEADSTONE DRIVE, HARROW, HA1 4UB (APPLICATION 5/02)

 

Reference: P/2449/09/GL/C – (Network Rail Infrastructure Limited). Prior Approval Of Detailed Plans And Specifications For Formation Of A Means Of Access To The Highway And New Electrical Substation.

 

DECISION:  That (1) prior approval is required;

 

(2)  GRANT prior approval for the development described in the application and submitted plans.

 

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