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.

 

Kenton Lane Farm, (Braziers Farm) 323 Kenton Lane, Harrow

 

Reference:  P/3075/12 (Mrs Carol Edwards & Mr David Brazier). Demolition Of Existing Modern Warehouse And Non-Listed Former Diary Storage Building, Extensions Incorporating Refridgeration Units, Canopy & Cages, Telecoms Mast And Associated Plant / Structures; Alterations To Grade Il Listed Farmhouse To Provide Two Self-Contained Residential Units; Conversion And Alterations To Grade Il Listed Former Diary Courtyard Outbuildings To Create Three Self-Contained Residential Units And Ancilliary Commercial / Workshop Space; And Construction Of 26 Two Storey With Habitable Roofspace Residential Dwellings, Retention Of Two Vehicular Accesses; Associated Car And Cycle Parking, Refuse Storage Facilities, Landscaping And Creation Of New Public Open Space.

 

An officer introduced the report with reference to the addendum.  An amendment to the addendum to delete ‘disposal’ and insert ‘erection’ in the Enabling Development Head of Terms was noted.  It was reported that a comprehensive site visit had taken place.  As a result of issues raised regarding the impact on the listed building, negotiations had taken place to ensure that the housing was sufficiently far away from the Grade II listed farm house to ensure that it was an entity in its own right.

 

In response to questions raised by Members, the Committee was informed that:

 

·                    each house would have a refuse store to the rear with bins being moved to the front of the properties on collection day;

 

·                    the 31 units would generate a small number of additional traffic movements, estimated at a dozen additional movements in the peak morning and afternoon periods.  The configuration of the access was satisfactory. There was a pedestrian refuge to the north of Grange Avenue;

 

·                    the fourth bedrooms would be located in the loft in the pitched roof. Neither dormers or bulky additions would be required;

 

·                    with regard to privacy, conditions recommended full landscape development along the boundary. There was no direct face to face at less than 20m building or overlooking due to the angle of the site layout;

 

·                    a condition required Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and a viability assessment had been undertaken on that basis.

 

The Committee received representations from an objector, John Lawes, and a representative of the applicant, Richard Henley.

 

DECISION:

 

(1)               delegation to the Divisional Director of Planning to determine the planning application following the end of the consultation period on 26 September 2013;

 

(2)               the delegation to the Divisional Director of Planning, in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services, for the sealing of the Section 106 Agreement and to agree any minor amendments to the conditions or legal agreement be approved;

 

(3)               should the Section 106 Agreement not be completed by 30 September 2013, the decision to REFUSE planning permission be delegated to the Divisional Director of Planning on the grounds as set out in the report.

 

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

 

KENTON LANE FARM (BRAZIERS FARM) 323 KENTON LANE HARROW

 

Reference:  P/3043/12 (Mrs Carol Edwards & Mr David Brazier). Listed Building Consent: Internal And External Alterations To Existing Farmhouse; Conversion And Internal And External Alterations Including Demolition Works To Courtyard Outbuildings To Create 3 Self-Contained Residential Units.

 

The Committee was informed of proposed minor amendments to conditions 6 and 36 to ensure that the works were undertaken by a suitable conservation expert.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED Listed Building Consent for the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the conditions and informatives reported and the following amendments to conditions 6 and 36:

 

Condition 6:

Prior to necessary brick repairs, including any re-pointing works, being conducted to the farm house a condition report of the external walls to the farmhouse, and: an accompanying method statement, existing and proposed plans and samples by a suitable conservation specialist where appropriate for repair, including any re-pointing works, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

 

Condition 36:

If previously unknown evidence is discovered about historical character which would be affected by the works hereby granted, the local authority shall be informed at the earliest opportunity in writing to decide on a strategy, and an appropriate record, together with recommendations for dealing with it in the context of the scheme, shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority before the relevant works are continued.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant listed building consent was unanimous.

 

43 - 55 WEST STREET HARROW

 

Reference:  P/3259/12 (Mr Graham Harwood). Demolition Of Existing Former Printworks Buildings At 43-49 West Street And Refurbishment Of 51 West Street To Create New Mixed Use Development For Print Works And Print Museum, With  Ancillary Coffee Shop And Offices (Sui Generis Use) With First Floor Link To No.51 West Street; Part Demolition & Rebuild At 53-55 West Street To Provide 2 X Dwellinghouses And 1 Detached Dwellinghouse To The Rear Of 43-55 West Street With Two-Storey Building To Provide Car Parking On Ground Floor & 3 X B1 Use Class Studio Workshops Above; Associated Landscaping, Parking And Refuse Storage.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for further discussions with the applicant and the agent.

 

43 - 49 WEST STREET HARROW

 

Reference:  P/0182/13 (Mr Graham Harwood). Partial Demolition Of Former Printworks Buildings At 43-49 West Street And 53-55 West Street (Street Frontages To Be Retained); Demolition Of Brick And Timber Sheds To The Rear Of Nos 43-55 West Street.

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED for further discussions with the applicant and the agent.

 

THE COUNTING HOUSE, 352 PINNER ROAD, NORTH HARROW

 

Reference:  P/1445/13 (Paddington Churches H.A). New Shop Front And Replacement Windows At Front (Mezzanine Level) And At Rear; Re-Modelling Of Existing Access Ramp Fronting Station Road And Sub-Division Of Existing Retail Unit; Change Of Use From Retail(Use Class A1) To Use Class D1 And/Or D2.

 

An officer introduced the report and suggested an amendment to the proposed acceptable uses due to possible disturbance and background levels of noise to residential properties.

 

In response to a question, the Committee was informed that the refuse arrangements would be the responsibility of the company management.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the conditions and informatives reported and the following amended condition 3:

 

The premises shall be only be used for the purposes set out as below under subsections a) and b) and for no other purpose, including any other purpose in Classes D1 and D2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any Statutory Instrument revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification).

 

o                   Class D1 permitted uses – Clinics, health centres, day centres, art galleries (other than for sales or hire), museums, libraries, law court and higher education college.

 

o                   Class D2 permitted uses – Gymnasiums or area for indoor sports or recreation.

 

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

 

103 WAXWELL LANE PINNER  

 

Reference:  P/2277/13 (Mr Aspi Contractor). Redevelopment To Provide 2 X Part Single And Two Storey Dwellinghouses With Basements And Accommodation At Roof Level.

 

The Committee was informed that as the footprint was only marginally larger than the scheme approved in 2010, it was not considered to be garden land. Amendments to insert ‘dampproofing’ after ‘below’ in condition 2 and to delete ‘commence’ and insert ‘be occupied’ in condition 3 were noted.

 

In response to questions from members, it was noted that:

 

·                    the flank windows were not considered to have a harmful impact as they were small and obscured glazing was proposed;

 

·                    the character of the surrounding area was mixed with terraced housing, two storey properties and the conservation area.  Both the terraced and new properties were straight back properties;

 

·                    the land did not form part of the Waxwell Close Conservation Area;

 

·                    there was no sustainable objection to increased traffic generation from a single dwelling.  The on site parking spaces were at the top end of London Plan requirements;

 

·                    for minor development proposals, the development plan at this point did not set out energy and sustainability targets greater than those required by Building Regulations.  As these standards would be secured through other legislation, no conditions were required in relation to sustainability measures.

 

The Committee received representations from an objector, Mr Hart, and a representative of the applicant, Rustom Contractor.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission 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.

 

WESTGATE CHAMBERS, 8A ELM PARK ROAD, PINNER

 

Reference:  P/0574/13 (Mr P Leong). Single Storey Front Extension; First Floor Roof Extension Incorporating Front Gable Feature, Two Front Dormers And Two Rear Dormers To Form Two Additional Use Class B1 Offices And One Self Contained Flat; External Alterations

 

In response to questions from members, it was noted that:

 

·                    the installation of a door in the top floor level plan would result in a self-contained property;

 

·                    a breach of a condition, such as occupation by persons not in direct employment of the Use Class B1 office use or work not being carried out in accordance with the plans, required the use to have been in existence for 10 years without enforcement;

 

·                    the traffic impact would not cause measurable harm as the existing properties were residential and it was a busy road

 

·                    it was permissible for B1 use in a residential area.  Whilst the B1 use of the ground floor was restricted to between 8am and 6pm, the two offices on the upper floor could be in use 24 hours a day.  The Committee could, if concerned, attach a condition to align the upper floor times of use with the existing offices on the ground floor.  However, it would be unreasonable for the additional small offices to be tied with the ground floor hours of use.  In the event of an application for the whole of the first floor to become flats, a reasonable standard of accommodation would be obtained;

 

·                    it would be unreasonable to attach conditions regarding hours of use to the different parts of a live/work unit;

 

·                    as the top floor was separate from the ground floor and therefore a separate entity, it could be leased to a different organisation or individual;

 

·                    should a complaint arise concerning the use, then there was a right of access and internal inspection with a warrant if necessary.

 

A Member of the Committee proposed refusal on the following grounds:

 

1.                  the proposed development would be of excessive scale and bulk, with an over intensive use, and would harm the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of neighbouring properties, contrary to policies DM1 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan, CS1.B of the Core Strategy and 7.4 of the London Plan;

 

2.                  the proposed development would harm the setting and character of the adjacent Waxwell Lane Conservation Area, contrary to policies DM7 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan, CS1.D of the Core Strategy and 7.8 of the London Plan.

 

The motion was seconded, put to the vote and carried.

 

The Committee received representations from an objector, Mrs Hill, and a representative of the applicant, Pierre Leon.

 

DECISION:  REFUSED planning permission for the development described in the submitted plans and application for the reasons given.

 

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

 

Councillors Stephen Greek, William Stoodley, Simon Williams and Stephen Wright voted for refusal.

 

Councillors Mrinal Choudhury and Keith ferry voted against refusal.

 

Councillor Bill Phillips abstained.

 

HARROW MAGISTRATES COURT, ROSSLYN CRESCENT, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/0955/13 (The Jaspar Foundation). Listed Building Consent: Internal And External Alterations Including Removal Of Walls And Interior Fixtures And Fittings And Part Reinstatement And Recreation Of Features And Replacement Of Windows (Partially Retrospective).

 

An officer introduced the report and noted that a site visit had taken place.  The grade II list description which was an accurate description of the site prior to recent unauthorised works was noted.  The issue before the Committee was whether the works were acceptable with regard to the listed building and character of the area.  The interventions of the officers were listed and reported.  The concern of the Conservation Officer was that the key part of the proposals were harmful and should be refused.  The works seemed to have been done well but had a harmful impact particularly removal of court features.  Some former cells remain which were appropriate and less harmful alterations were carried out to the upper floors.

 

DECISION:  REFUSED Listed Building Consent for the works described in the submitted plans and application, as amended by the addendum, for the reasons given

 

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