Agenda item

Report of the Divisional Director, Planning - circulated separately.

 

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Planning Protocol, where Councillors disagree with the advice of the Divisional Director, Planning, 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 Divisional Director, Planning to issue the decision notices in respect of the applications considered.

 

(APPLICATION 1/01) THE HIVE FOOTBALL CENTRE (FORMERLY PRINCE EDWARD PLAYING FIELDS), CAMROSE AVENUE, EDGWARE

 

Reference:  P/2940/12 (Mr Anthony Kleanthous). Variation of Condition 6 (Landscaping), to Allow Landscaping Detail to be Submitted to the Council after Development has Commenced on Site rather than Prior to the Development Commencing, attached to Planning Permission P/0002/07/CFU Dated 08/04/2008 for Redevelopment for Enlarged Football Stadium and Clubhouse, Floodlights, Games Pitches, Banqueting Facilities, Health and Fitness Facility, Internal Roads and Parking.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED variation of Condition 6 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 the application was unanimous.

 

(APPLICATION 1/02) MARLBOROUGH PRIMARY SCHOOL, MARLBOROUGH HILL, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/2493/12 (Harrow Council). Demolition of Existing School Buildings and Re-Development of Entire School Site over a Series of Construction Phases to Provide a Two and Three Storey Building; Associated Landscaping to Include Hard and Soft Play Areas; New Boundary Treatment; Alteration to Car Parking Layout and Provision of Cycle Storage; New Vehicle Access from Marlborough Hill and Badminton Close (To Expand Existing 2 Form Entry Primary School to Provide 3 Form Entry Primary School).

 

An officer introduced the application and reported that a site visit had taken place.  It was noted that a representation had been received that afternoon from Gareth Thomas MP regarding the concerns raised by the objector.

 

In response to questions, it was noted that:

 

·                    the condition regarding no floodlighting related to the multi use games area.  Ambient lighting would be provided in other areas as appropriate;

 

·                    the Community Safety Secured by Design Condition was intended to allow appropriate boundary treatment that opened up the area whilst providing a secure perimeter to the site.  An enclosed 2.1 metre railing would enable clear views for any security cameras;

 

·                    Condition 20 stated that the vehicle crossing to Badminton Close would be used for emergency access only and for no other purpose and was enforceable.  The applicant had stated that visually it would appear to be a continuation of the fence;

 

·                    the ownership of the fence was not a planning consideration.  The focus was on whether the emergency gate was acceptable, taking into consideration the concern of the objector that it could become a school entrance;

 

·                    Condition 4 required a Construction method statement to ensure that the construction of the development was managed in a way that, as far as possible, avoided undue impact on the amenities of Badminton Close.  This included the parking of construction vehicles;

 

·                    the Construction method statement would provide for the dealing of noise and phasing of the development.  The submission of detail on the statements was not subject to consultation by the local Planning Authority with residents.  Control of Noise Regulations and/or environmental health enforcement could be invoked if appropriate;

 

·                    should the developer wish to amend the external materials to change timber for another, condition 3 would provide some flexibility provided the overall appearance did not change.  The indication was that the timber proposed was untreated timber;

 

·                    the Council highway department had confirmed that Badminton Close was adopted highway with the first 2 spits falling within the control of the Highway Authority.

 

The Committee received representations from one objector, Mrs Howarth, and the applicant, Marcus Toombs.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission, under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations, for the development described in the application and submitted plans, as amended by the addendum, subject to the conditions and informatives reported.

 

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

 

(APPLICATION 2/01) 132 BUTLER ROAD, WEST HARROW

 

Reference:  P/2675/12 (Mr Mazzi & Mr Sharkey). Retrospective Application for the Revised Footprint of Units 1, 2 and 3, Revised Drainage Details and  Alterations to External Elevations in Connection with the Redevelopment of Land to the Rear of 132 Butler Road to Provide a Pair of Semi-Detached Houses and a Detached Bungalow with Access and Parking (Variation of Planning Permission Ref: P/1414/09 dated 15/10/09).

 

The Chairman reported that a site visit had been made.

 

In response to a question, it was noted that had the increased footprint been included in the original application the officers would have recommended grant.

 

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

 

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

 

(APPLICATION 2/02) GLASFRYN COURT, BRICKFIELDS, HARROW  

 

Reference:  P/2959/12 (Glasfryn Court Management Co Ltd). 1.9m High Gate Fronting Roxeth Hill.

 

The Chairman stated that the Committee did not have authority to consider the legal implications of the right of way or highway regulations as its brief was consideration of the material planning procedures.

 

An officer introduced the report stating that the gate was considered acceptable in visual terms.  The potential impact on the right of way was a separate but material consideration.  The right of way shown by the definitive map had been obstructed by gates erected subsequent to a 1993 planning permission.  The ability to enforce against an obstruction of a right of way was not a planning issue, being subject to the Highways Act 1980 and the management company had been advised to seek approval from the Highway Authority prior to undertaking any works.  A Condition regarding details of any latch and a self closing mechanism was considered acceptable.

 

In response to questions, it was noted that

 

·                    whilst any action regarding the notice on the wall stating that there was no public access was a matter for the highways authority, councilors could make representations to the highway authority;

 

·                    officers considered the proposal to be acceptable in planning terms;

 

·                    the highway authority had a legal obligation to ensure free passage of a public right of way;

 

·                    the sign to the side of the proposed gate was not part of the planning application;

 

·                    as the approach to the gate was by means of a sloping route with steps, the officers considered that erection of a gate was not considered to add a significant additional burden to users of the route.  This was nevertheless a judgement of the Planning Authority, and not the highway authority.

 

The Committee received representations from one objector, Alan Evans, and the applicant presented a written representation.

 

The officers were asked to request the highways department to erect a footpath indicator sign for footpath 120 in the vicinity of the gate.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, as amended by the addendum, subject to conditions and informatives reported with an amendment to the end of condition 2 that ‘the gate shall at no time be fixed shut’.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was as follows:

 

CouncillorsMrinal Choudhury, Keith Ferry, Stephen Greek, Joyce Nickolay, Bill Phillips and William Stoodley voted to grant the application.

 

Councillor Stephen Wright abstained.

 

(APPLICATION 2/03) LOWLANDS RECREATION GROUND, LOWLANDS ROAD, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/0218/13 (Harrow Council). Earthworks to Include Banking and Changes in Levels, Retaining Wall, and Associated Landscaping.

 

The Committee considered this application as a matter of urgency because the proposal was in line with the corporate priority to support town centres and a February decision was required in relation to the funding from the Mayor’s Outer London Fund.

 

An officer reported that extensive consultation had taken place with Transport for London, ward Councillors, Council departments, Friends of Lowlands Recreation Ground and residents within the Conservation Area.  An additional consultation response from the Conservation Area Advisory Committee expressing concern regarding the form of the hatched area was included in the addendum but this area was not part of the current planning application.  The proposal would facilitate further works at the recreation ground which would be the subject of a full application in due course.

 

In response to questions it was stated that:

 

·                    there was a commitment to fund the works over two years with the early engineering works being undertaken in the current financial year;

 

·                    access for grasscutting machinery would be facilitated;

 

·                    at present there was no intention to create a path around the inner part of the bowl structure;

 

·                    a consultant was undertaking work in connection with commercial viability and a business plan regarding the performance area.  The nature of the performances would be a matter for the Licensing Panel.

 

DECISION:  DELEGATED authority to the Divisional Director of Planning to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and informatives, following the end of the consultation period, as amended by the addendum.

 

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