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 of Planning to issue the decision notices in respect of the applications considered.

 

HARROW COLLEGE, LOWLANDS ROAD, HARROW 

 

Reference:  P/3889/13 (Ms Judith Abbott). Demolition of Existing Temporary Classrooms and Part Demolition of Teaching Block and Construction of 4 Storey and 5th Storey Building for Plant Teaching Accommodation with External Landscaping Works.

 

In response to questions, the Committee was advised that:

 

·                     the existing buildings were of varying styles, design and age which would be complemented by the proposed building which was modern and unique in design.  The Conservation Officer was satisfied that it would be sufficiently distanced from the curtiledge of the Listed Building.  The building was higher but appropriate within its setting;

 

·                     consultation had exceeded the statutory requirements.  The Baptist Church and College Road were on the other side of the railway so were outside the consultation area.  English Heritage had been consulted at the same time as other consultees and had not responded;

 

·                     the capacity of the college would increase by 170 students and 40 members of staff to a maximum of 720 students and staff;

 

·                     the College was within walking distance of the station hub.  The Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) operated Monday to Friday and there was no freely available parking.  The loss of 10 parking spaces was acknowledged but in the context of the site was not seen as a cause for concern.  The travel plan for the development would be an appendage to the existing travel plan for the College.  The inclusion in the travel plan of discouraging parking across drives could be suggested as a goodwill gesture;

 

·                     the outside lighting would take the form of low level white light for separation between the top and bottom of the building and would secure by design.  In addition, there would be strips of low energy LED light between cladding panels which would simply glow.  The outside lighting would be on evening and night  time only and be was designed as a backdrop and no light pollution should arise;

 

·                     the TfL proposals for the station car park were not known but this development would not prejudice any proposals.  Nor would it prejudice sites coming forward in Harrow Town Centre.  There would be the opportunity to provide a more comprehensive survey of development in Harrow Town Centre in conjunction with the Intensification Area.

 

The Committee received representations from an objector, Irene Wears, and the applicant, Alan Simpson.

 

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

 

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

 

125 NORMAN CRESCENT, PINNER

 

Reference:  P/3973/13 (Mr Subhash Patel). Single Storey Front Extension Incorporating Porch, Single Storey Rear Extension; Conversion of Garage into Habitable Room and Formation of Front Bay Window.

 

It was noted that the application was reported to the Committee as the applicant was an employee of the Council.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED planning 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.

 

STORE REAR OF 59 HAVELOCK ROAD, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/3463/13(Mr Bassel Affoury).  Change of Use from Skip Storage Hire (Sui Generis) to Open Air Car Storage (Use Class B8) (Retrospective Application).

 

An officer introduced the report and noted that a site visit had taken place.  The Committee was informed that the lawful use of the site was as a skip storage hire facility and the proposed change of use would not result in a demonstrably different use of the site.

 

In response to questions, the Committee was advised that:

 

·                     a condition on screening to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties would not meet the legal test for conditions given the present use of the site as it would require physical work;

 

·                     an increase in the height of the boundary fencing would require planning permission and discussion with the adjacent properties.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED planning permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, as amended by the addendum, subject to conditions and informatives reported, and the following additional condition:

 

Details of measures to ensure site security in accordance with the principles of Secure By Design shall be submitted to and approved in writing and implemented prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved.

 

REASON:  To ensure that appropriate security measures are implemented in accordance with the aims of Policy 7.13B of the London Plan 2011.

 

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

 

MONTESOLES PLAYING FIELDS, UXBRIDGE ROAD, PINNER 

 

Reference:  P/2452/13 (Little Raccoons Nursery Ltd).  Change of Use of Former Pavilion to Children's Day Nursery and Community Hall (Use Class D1); Single Storey Extension to Northern Elevation of the Existing Pavilion; Raised Decking to the Southern Elevation; Access Ramp and Steps to New Northern Elevation; External Alterations; New Boundary Fencing; Landscaping and Refuse Store; Refurbishment of Former Public Conveniences to Provide Changing Rooms and Toilets.

 

An officer introduced the report and informed the Committee that it was proposed to refurbish the former pavilion and former public conveniences, both of which were in a poor state of repair.  Attention was drawn to the addendum which included an amended condition 15 with regard to hours of use.

 

In response to questions, the Committee was advised that:

 

·                     as the applicant did not own the land, a lease or transfer would be required prior to implementation of the planning permission.  The Day Nursery and Community Hall could not be occupied until the completion of the refurbishment of the former public conveniences;

 

·                     any increase in the value of the land as a result of the development was a matter for the Council as landowner and the applicant.  The Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 enabled the Committee to determine planning applications on Council owned land;

 

·                     the community use would take place during periods when the nursery was not functioning.

 

DECISION: 

 

1.                  GRANTED planning 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 by the addendum, subject to conditions and informatives reported;

 

2.                  That, should the Council enter into an agreement for the sale or lease of the property, the Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts be requested to give consideration to the future management and maintenance of the changing rooms and toilets.

 

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

 

LYONS, GARLANDS LANE, HARROW ON THE HILL 

 

Reference:  P/4033/13 (Keepers & Governors of Harrow School  Proposed Multi-Use Games Area (Muga); 4 X 8m High Floodlight Masts; Mesh Netting & Retaining Wall; New Access Path.

 

An officer introduced the report and noted a site visit.  The Committee was informed that residents in Pebworth Road in Brent had not been consulted on the proposal because, at their closest point, the floodlighting columns would be approximately 800 m away from the rear boundaries of properties on Pebworth Road in Brent.  The floodlights would not be in operation between 1 April and 1 October each year.

 

In response to questions, the Committee was advised that:

 

·                     condition 7 dealt with land levels and conditions 5 and 6 would soften the impact of the development but not completely screen it.  A requirement to plant trees could give rise to root protection issues due to the mesh fencing.  The officers would examine the landscaping, particularly the density, and would discuss the screening with the applicant;

 

·                     ongoing discussions were taking place with Harrow School regarding the comprehensive development programme.

 

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

 

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

 

VARIOUS SITES AROUND BUSHEY INCLUDING FIVE WITHIN LONDON BOROUGH OF HARROW

 

Reference:  P/0084/14 (United Synagogue). Construction of Pole and Wire Gateways and Steel Posts to Form An Eruv For Bushey.

 

It was noted that the applicant would be required to obtain a licence from the Highways Authority.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED planning 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.

 

LETCHFORD ARMS PUBLIC HOUSE, LETCHFORD TERRACE, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/3882/13 (Mr Sam Berg).  Redevelopment to Provide Six Three Storey Terraced Dwellinghouses with Associated Parking and Landscaping; Demolition of Existing Public House and Outbuildings.

 

An officer introduced the report stating that the application had been deferred from the previous meeting in order to obtain additional information.  The Committee was informed that the property had been marketed for 15 months using varied means of advertising including a mailshot circulated to 5000 operators and online.  A sample of the marketing/advertising material had been requested but not received.  It was confirmed that no real interest had ensued and the property had been vacant for more than two years and was in disrepair.  It had been marketed prior to closure and had declined in viability.  Although the property was locally listed, planning legislation enabled it to be demolished without planning permission.

 

The officer outlined marketing levels for five public houses that the applicant considered to be comparable.

 

In response to questions, the Committee was advised that:

 

·                     the officers were satisfied that the second period of marketing was at a realistic level as there was no contrary evidence;

 

·                     planning regulations dealt with the issue in relation to the retention of existing community facilities and not specifically public houses.  This stipulated 12 months of suitable marketing and did not specify a continuous period was required.  Early in 2012 it had been marketed by the previous owners and an additional 9 months by the present owners but officers were unaware whether it was continuous.  There was a requirement to meet one of four tests, one of which was public benefit;

 

·                     the fact that the building was locally listed did not raise the level of marketing or effort required, nor did it affect the replacement design;

 

·                     the applicant had taken photographic evidence of the features the preservation of which was considered to warrant the Local Listing.

 

Members considered that the public house marketing submitted as comparable were in busy areas, reflecting that the rent would be according to the level of business.  The previous owner had offered a grace free period but probably needed to offer some refurbishment.  A Member who had researched the pricing of public houses suggested a rent of £5,000 to £10,000 as more suitable.

 

A further member stated that the information presented was not that minuted as required from the last meeting.  The potential business case depended on reputation.  The developer’s website stated that it was interested in obtaining licensed premises for demolition and redevelopment.  It would have been preferable had the public house and cottages been listed at the same time as Letchford House currently grade ll.

 

DECISION:  REFUSED for the following reason:

 

There is insufficient evidence of suitable marketing of the Public House at a realistic rate for a sufficient period of time, contrary to Policy DM47 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.

 

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

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, Stephen Greek, William Stoodley and Stephen Wright voted to refuse the application

 

Councillors Mrinal Choudhury and Joyce Nickolay voted against refusal

 

Councillor Bill Phillips abstained.

 

SINGLE STOREY FRONT TO SIDE EXTENSION; DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE AT FRONT

 

Reference:  P/3600/13 (Mrs Saabra Deen). Single Storey Front to Side Extension; Demolition of Existing Garage at Front.

 

The Vice-Chairman took the Chair for this item.

 

DECISION:  REFUSED for the reasons given in the report.

 

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

 

102-124 STATION ROAD, EDGWARE

 

Reference:  P/0107/14 (Erinastar Ltd).  Consultation from a Neighbouring Authority: Demolition of 120-124 Station Road and Outline Planning Permission (With all Matters other Than Access Reserved) for New Buildings From 7-19 Stories with Podium Level to Provide up to 165 Flats (Use Class C3), up to 1,450sqm Flexible Community Floorspace (Use Class D1/D2), 275sqm of Retail/Restaurant Floorspace (Use Class A1/A2/A3), and the New Shopfront to the Church Way Facade of the Existing Retail Unit at 102-106 Station Road.  The Provision of Pedestrian Site Access from Station Road and Church Way, and Vehicular Access from Church Way.

 

DECISION:  NO OBJECTION raised.

 

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