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.

 

THE HIVE FOOTBALL CENTRE (FORMERLY PRINCE EDWARD PLAYING FIELDS), CAMROSE AVENUE, EDGWARE

 

Reference:  P/3469/13 (Mr Anthony Kleanthous). Single Storey Side Extension to the East Stand to Create an Enlarged Medical Centre; Two Chiller Units on the Southern Elevation of this Extension.

 

In response to questions, it was noted that:

 

·                    no licensing requirements were required under the Planning Acts, any licensing requirements were not therefore material to the application;

 

·                    the application was in conjunction with the existing medical use and as such did not conflict with previous planning permissions for the site;

 

·                    any requirements with regard to radiation were not planning considerations and the Council had no financial liability for the use.  As an extension to an approved medical facility planning permission was not required for a scanner.  Those operating the equipment would need to take their own precautions;

 

·                    the officers would, as requested, liaise with the appropriate Council department to ascertain that any issues regarding radiation were drawn to the attention of the football club;

 

·                    any concern that the medical centre was being used independently of the football club would be assessed by the officers at the time.  Independent use would require separate planning permission.

 

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

 

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

 

ENTERPRISE HOUSE, 297 PINNER ROAD, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/3728/13 (Sandkot Ltd). Redevelopment to Include Demolition of Existing Building and Construction of New Three Storey Building Comprising 8 Flats; 1.8m High Fence to Side and Rear Boundaries; Associated Parking and Landscaping Refuse and Cycle Storage.

 

An officer introduced the report and drew attention to the addendum which included the receipt of additional representations which had been addressed within the report.

 

In response to questions, it was noted that:

 

·                    the orientation of Adrian Court was such that it would be difficult for the development to overshadow the rear;

 

·                    a timber close boarded fence would be erected by the developer;

 

·                    the bin storage would be located to the side of the development

 

·                    the development would accord with the Lifetime Homes standards and level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

 

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

 

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 presented the report and informed the Committee that it was considered that the policy tests arising from the Development Management Policies for locally listed buildings (DM7) and the former public house (DM46) had been met.

 

In response to questions it was noted that:

 

·                    the purpose of the oversail was to enable the front gardens to accommodate a car lengthwise.  It was an unusual design that had been implemented in schemes outside Harrow.  Integral parking had been investigated but the site constraints did not enable sufficient space for it to function properly. The officers considered that the onsite/offsite parking was of a suitable form.  There was insufficient space for two cars to park.  A planning condition with respect to hard and soft landscaping was included which also removed permitted development;

 

·                    there were balconies on the second floor only;

 

·                    the site had been marketed extensively but no expressions of interest had been received.  Whilst the officers were satisfied that a significant amount of marketing had been undertaken, they were unable to advise on the rent sought.  Should the Committee wish to seek further clarification on the suitability of the rent sought it would be necessary to seek independent advice;

 

·                    the Committee was required to decide on the weight given to the policy regarding the locally listed building and that for achieving additional housing units;

 

·                    there had been a lot of discussion regarding the scheme design.  Whilst the proposed development was more modern than the adjacent building, there were different styles in the streetscene and the public house was itself different to the surrounding area.  The locally listed building was not protected and there was no policy to require it to be replicated in the new building;

 

·                    the planning statement and design and access statement stated that the applicant had concluded that the renovation and conversion of the building was not commercially viable;

 

·                    any future proposals by the neighbouring properties to develop the loftspace, create balconies or divide the properties into two flats would be judged on their merits;

 

·                    with regard to overlooking and position of the school, the current houses could put a dormer on the back and have the same degree of visibility to the school opposite under permitted development.  The screening to the balconies did not enable an all round clear view;

 

·                    there had been consultation with adjoining properties and a site notice. The Hatch End Association had been directly consulted and many amenity groups received the weekly list of planning applications;

 

·                    the Conservation Officer had been consulted and her response was contained in the report.

 

A Member made reference to the extensive consultation on the Locally Listed Buildings Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) prior to it coming into effect in December 2013.  The SPD detailed the process for listing and stated that the Council would strongly discourage the demolition of any buildings on the local list and would seek to encourage their retention, restoration and continued beneficial use wherever possible.  Locally listed buildings had been selected due to their particular special local historical and/or architectural merit.  It was not considered that the report fully explored the proposals.

 

In addition, the Member reported that the Pinner Historical Society had stated that the building had been constructed in the 1850s and that it was understood that it had been altered and not rebuilt as recorded in the report.

 

A Development Management Policy (DMP) issued the previous year, particularly highlighted the need to preserve the public house market for 12 months.  The Committee considered that a rent of £60,000 per annum appeared to be high considering the locality and the fact that the public house had been closed by police two years previously.

 

It was agreed to defer consideration of the planning application to ensure that the appropriate tests had been undertaken to justify the loss of a public house amenity.  The Committee sought information on feedback from the marketing exercise, the suitability of the rent sought for the area, the process for retaining the features of a locally listed building, and the extent to which consideration had been given to a more traditional design for the development. 

 

DECISION:  DEFERRED consideration to enable further information to be obtained.

 

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