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 and a second Addendum were admitted late to the agenda as they contained information relating to various items on the agenda and were based on information received after the despatch of the agenda.  It was noted that on 11 October 2013, the Greater London Authority (GLA) published Revised Early Minor Alterations (REMA) to The London Plan 2011.  From this date the REMA are operative as formal alterations to The London Plan 2011 and therefore form part of the development plan for Harrow.  The Addendum and second Addendum were 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.

 

KRISHNA-AVANTI PRIMARY SCHOOL, CAMROSE AVENUE, EDGWARE

 

Reference:  P/2566/13 (Avanti School). Trust Variation Of Condition 14 (Use Class Restriction) Of Planning Permission Ref: P/1282/07 Dated 8 April 2008 From 'The Land And Buildings, Except For The Multi Use Playing Areas Shall Be Used For The Purpose Specified On The Application And For No Other Purpose Or For The Hire Of The Premises For Any Purpose, Including Any Other Purpose In Class D1 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)' To 'The Land And Buildings, Except For The Multi Use Playing Areas Shall Be Used For Primary Education Only And For No Other Purpose And Shall Not Be Used Or Hired For Any Purpose, Including Any Other Purpose In Class D1 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)'.

 

Variation Of Condition 19 (Restriction Of Use Of School By Pupils And Staff Only) Of Planning Permission Ref: P/1282/07 Dated 8 April 2008 From 'The School Hereby Permitted Shall Be Used Solely By The Pupils And Staff And Shall Not Be Used, Hired Or Made Available For Use By Any Other Party' To 'The Land And Buildings Hereby Permitted Shall Be Used For Primary Education Only And Shall Not Be Used, Hired Or Made Available For Use By Any Other Party'.

 

An officer introduced the report and drew attention to the addendum.  It was noted that the application sought to vary both conditions for an additional year from the date of the permission pending the move to more permanent accommodation.

 

In response to a question it was agreed that a simplified description would be notified to the public to increase awareness of the purpose of the application.

 

DECISION:  DELEGATED to the Divisional Director of Planning to determine the application following the end of the consultation period, as amended by the addendum.

 

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

 

WEST HOUSE, PINNER MEMORIAL PARK, WEST END LANE, PINNER

 

Reference:  P/2618/13(Ms Cynthia Wells).  New Two Storey Museum Building With Covered Link To Existing West House Building.

 

In response to questions, the Committee was informed that the proposed hours that the museum development would be open to the public reflected the established opening hours of West House, which had operated for some time without evidenced detriment to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.  This would enable flexibility should there be an ancillary event at the museum.

 

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

 

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

 

355 - 359 STATION ROAD AND 3-5 COLLEGE ROAD, HARROW  

 

Reference:  P/1992/13 (Mr N Shah & Mr R Soni). Redevelopment To Provide New Third Floor To Create Three Self-Contained Flats.

 

An officer introduced the report and, in response to a question, advised that a ventilated refuse store would continue in its present location with the occupiers taking their rubbish downstairs on collection days.

 

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

 

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

 

WEST END LAWN TENNIS CLUB, CUCKOO HILL ROAD, PINNER

 

Reference:  P/1425/13 (Roger Hill-Chairman). Installation Of New 5 Metre High Floodlight Column With 2 X Luminaries To Court 6; New Luminaries To Existing 5 Metre Column Between Court 5 & 6 (Updated Lighting Information Received).

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED to enable officers additional time to consider representations received in response to consultations on the application.

 

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

 

11 GRANTCHESTER CLOSE, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/1946/13 (Mr M Pangali).  Single And Two Storey Front Side And Rear Extensions Incorporating Front And Rear Dormers;  Rear Extension And Increase In Height Of Detached Garage; External Alterations.

 

In response to questions, the Committee was advised that:

 

·                     there were examples in the immediate area of properties with skylights;

 

·                     the conversion of the existing garage would not require planning permission.  The use of the garage was ancillary and change of use would be required for it to become self contained with planning permission being required for business use or independent residential use.

 

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

 

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

 

GARVARNIE, 4 PENKETH DRIVE, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/2982/12(Mr Ryan O’Leary).  Retrospective Application For Swimming Pool With Hard Standing And Alterations To Ground Levels; Fencing ; Detached Outbuilding; Boundary Wall.

 

An officer introduced the report for retrospective planning permission and noted that there had been a site visit.

 

The committee was informed that

 

·                     the hardstanding around the swimming pool required planning permission, the swimming pool itself did not;

 

·                     the rear garden had been subject to a considerable amount of infill earthworks resulting in difficulty in establishing the site levels.  The engineering officers had measured at various points and were of the view that the land had been raised by approximately 1.0m with the detached outbuilding being at a higher level than previously.  This was not considered harmful as it was within the back garden in a semi-rural location with landscaping offsetting any harm;

 

·                     some concerns regarding stability and flood risk were acknowledged but there was recourse to ensure retrospective work to mitigate this in conditions 2 and 3;

 

·                     the Tree Officer and Enforcement Officer had visited the site and were satisfied that whilst there had been some works to trees it was acceptable overall.

 

A Building Control representative stated that he had visited the site with the drainage officers.  The earthworks were currently retained by a timber fence which would deteriorate.  It was recommended that a more permanent structure designed by a structural engineer be implemented to ensure that boundary definitions were retained.

 

In response to questions, it was stated that:

 

·                     the Article 4 direction existed to protect amenity assets.  The type of trees did not require planning permission.  The consultant and professional colleagues considered that the required earthworks were achievable and could provide betterment;

 

·                     there was a condition prescribing methods to ensure the stability of the willow tree;

 

·                     the applicant would speak to the drainage engineer and planners to ensure a solution on the route of storm water;

 

·                     landscaping conditions were proposed to supplement the screening of the outbuilding which was about 5 metres in from the boundary, and 35 metres from the back of the house;

 

·                     calculations took into account the loading from the swimming pool;

 

·                     should the levels be returned to the previous level the outbuilding would be permitted development.  The bar did not require planning permission.

 

A Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

 

The proposed development failed to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Mount Park Estate Conservation Area and would cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties contrary to the Harrow on the Hill Supplementary Planning Document, DM1 and DM7 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan, CSI.B, CSID, CS3 of the Core Strategy, 7.4 and 7.8 of the London Plan.

 

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

 

The Committee received representations from objectors, Eileen Kinnear and Alan Evans, and a representative of the applicant, Jeremy Steene.

 

DECISION: 

 

(1)               GRANTED permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to conditions and informatives, as amended by the addendum;

 

(2)               that discharge of conditions 2 and 3 be submitted to Committee for approval.

 

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

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, Graham Henson, Sachin Shah and William Stoodley voted for grant.

 

Councillors Stephen Greek, Simon Williams and Stephen Wright voted against.

 

PARK HIGH SCHOOL, THISTLECROFT GARDENS, STANMORE

 

Reference:  P/0940/13 (Mr Emlyn Lumley). Variation Of Condition 1 Of Planning Permission East/298/96/Var Dated 16-Jul-1996 To Allow For Use Of Sports Hall By Members Of The Public For Sports Purposes.

 

The officer presented the application, noting that the application was deferred from the meeting on 3 September 2013 to allow for consideration and consultation regarding additional information received from the applicant.  A site visit had been made. Attention was drawn to the addendum which included additional representations and listed alternative facilities which were not within the 1 mile/20 minute walk catchment area noted in the Council’s PPG17 Open Space Study.

 

The Committee was informed that, having looked at the potential amenity the officer view was that on balance the case for additional facilities had not been made.  Whilst it was noted that the proposal could result in additional levels of noise, disturbance and traffic movements the impacts could more reasonably be determined while the use was in implementation, therefore consideration could be given to a temporary permission.

 

In response to questions, the Committee was informed that:

 

·                     the issue was how accessible the available facilities were to the user.  None were within the catchment area in the Open Space Study which divided Harrow into five different zones;

 

·                     in previous such cases the clear test was whether complaints were made regarding the use.  These would be noted by the school;

 

·                     the conditions referred to ‘sport’ and not ‘sport and fitness’ in order to minimise the impact on neighbouring amenity;

 

·                     the demonstration that there was demand for indoor sports facilities in the area was provided by the letters from sports clubs;

 

·                     whilst it was recognised that there would be an overlap in the maximum numbers in condition 3, the activity would be outside peak traffic hours and would not coincide with the school peak hours.  Generous provision of parking space was made, mostly contained within the site.  There was the potential for some overflow onto the highway but not to the detriment of the locality.  The Highway Authority had not objected to the proposals, it was an amenity scheme.  The condition was enforceable with Enforcement Officers counting the number of vehicles and notifying the school;

 

·                     Condition 5 required a full management strategy.  It would be for the school to inform users of requirements and permission could be retracted should serious problems ensue.

 

A Member moved the following motion of refusal:

 

In the absence of an identified need for additional sports facilities in the area, the proposal would result in an unacceptable level of noise, disturbance and traffic movements, to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of Burnell Gardens and Thistlecroft Gardens, contrary to policies DM1 and DM46 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).

 

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

 

The Committee received representations from an objector, Michael Noble, and a representative of the applicant, Frank Stocks.

 

DECISION:  REFUSED for the reasons given above.

 

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

 

Councillors Stephen Greek, Graham Henson, Sachin Shah and Simon Williams voted in favour of refusal.

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, William Stoodley and Stephen Wright voted against refusal.

 

LANESIDE, CHURCH LANE, PINNER

 

Reference:  P/1841/13 (Ms Alpa Shah).  Single And Two Storey Side Extensions To Both Sides Of Dwellinghouse And Single And Two Storey Rear Extension; Two Rear Dormers; Insertion Of Rooflights In Front And Both Side Roofslopes Of Dwellinghouse; Front Porch; Raising Of Roof Ridge Of The Dwelling; Creation Of Basement; Conversion Of Detached Garage To Room With External Alterations.

 

An officer introduced the application, drawing a

 

In response to questions, it was noted that:

 

·                     a Conservation Area was not intended to restrict development but to ensure protection or enhancement of the character and appearance;

 

·                     the profile had essentially been maintained with the sloping roof characteristic, retention of the chimney was retained and provision of a further chimney;

 

·                     the character of the Pinner High Street Conservation Area was defined by individual buildings;

 

·                     the existing property had a single parking space, any increase in parking requirements would require application for permits within the parking zone;

 

·                     the house next door also had dormers to the front.  There was quite an extensive side garden of 10 metres, the extension being 4.6 metres.  The side had a catslide feature;

 

·                     the aerial viewpoint showed the footprint to be one of the smallest, if not the smallest, property in the area.

 

A Member moved the following motion of refusal:

 

The proposal would result in excessive scale, bulk and insufficient parking and would harm the appearance of the Pinner High Street Conservation Area contrary to policies DM1, DM7 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy, and 7.4 and 7.8 of the London Plan.

 

The motion was seconded and put to the vote.  There was an equality of votes and the Chairman exercised his casting vote against the motion.  The motion was therefore lost.

 

The Committee received representations from an objector, John Harvey, and a representative of the applicant, Dipesh Shah.

 

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

 

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

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, Graham Henson, Sachin Shah and William Stoodley voted in favour of the application.

 

Councillors Stephen Greek, Simon Williams and Stephen Wright voted against the application.

 

GLEBE PRIMARY SCHOOL, D’ARCY GARDENS, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/2529/13 (Harrow Council).  Details Pursuant To Condition 12 (Travel Plan), Attached To Planning Permission P/2342/12 Dated 06/11/2012 For 'Erection Of Single Storey Building (Up To 8.1m High) With Link-To Existing School Building; External Alterations Including Boundary Treatment Along Glebe Lane; Provision Of 5 Additional Car Parking Spaces'.

 

It was noted that the Committee had requested the submission of details of the travel plan in order to ensure a satisfactory Travel Plan for the expanded school.

 

DECISION:  APPROVED details pursuant to condition 12, as amended by the addendum.

 

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

 

STANBURN FIRST AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS, ABERCORN ROAD, STANMORE

 

Reference:  P/2535/13 (Harrow Council).  Details Pursuant To Condition 9 (Travel Plan), Attached To Planning Permission P/2020/12 Dated 02/11/2012 For 'Two Storey Extension With First Floor Link To Main Building; Alterations To School Pedestrian Entrance And Car Park (Demolition Of Two Storey Annexe Building)'.

 

It was noted that the Committee had requested the submission of details of the travel plan in order to ensure a satisfactory Travel Plan for the expanded school.

 

DECISION:  APPROVED details pursuant to condition 9, as amended by the addendum.

 

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

 

LAND ADJACENT TO THE ROYAL NATIONAL ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL, BROCKLEY HILL, STANMORE

 

Reference:  P/1396/13 (Mr Popat).  Detached Three Storey Dwelling House With Basement, Use Of Vine Cottage As Triple Garage, Store And Residential Unit For Caretaker With External Alterations, Demolition Of All Other Buildings On The Site, Access From Brockley Hill.

 

An officer introduced the report, noting that a site visit had been undertaken.

 

In response to questions, the Committee was informed that:

 

·                     a design for the  gates, similar to the original design, would be taken into account during consideration of boundary conditions;

 

·                     that, in accordance with condition 2, the outbuildings should be demolished prior to commencement of works.  If the development was not implemented in accordance with the plans it would be a breach of condition;

 

·                     it was confirmed that no listed trees were affected.

 

DECISION:  GRANTEDpermission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to conditions and informatives, as amended by the addendum and referral to the National Planning Casework Unit (DCLG) under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.

 

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

 

47 HIGH STREET, EDGWARE

 

Reference:  P/1121/13 (VIP Lounge & Safestore Self Storage).  Variation Of Condition 3 (Opening Hours) To Planning Permission P/3012/11 Dated 31/08/2012 To Allow Opening Hours From 08:00 Hours To 00:45 Hours Monday To Sunday Including Bank Holidays.

 

An officer introduced the report, noting that a site visit had been undertaken.  The second addendum contained two additional representations and a briefing note for Members submitted on behalf of the applicant.

 

The attention of the Committee was drawn to the fact that a previous planning permission to increase capacity to 700 persons had not yet been implemented as a result of which a management plan had not been assessed to demonstrate how the existing permission could be operated.  Officers therefore considered that the expanded facility should be brought into use for at least a period of one year, before an extension to the opening hours could be considered.  This would allow for the Local Planning Authority to monitor the impacts associated with the expanded use.

 

In response to questions, it was noted that:

 

·                     there was no concern with the proposed earlier opening time of 08.00.  However, the increase in closing time into the early morning for functions/events each day, particularly on Sundays and weekdays was considered to be unacceptable at the current time;

 

·                     the recording of complaints from neighbouring properties regarding noise was not a planning matter but for Environmental Health;

 

·                     the management strategy was comprehensive and covered up to 700 people.  It was important to ensure that any extended opening hours would not give rise to permanent adverse impacts on nearby residents.

 

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.