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.

 

WAXWELL FARM HOUSE, FORMERLY THE GRAIL, 125 WAXWELL LANE, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/0508/14 (Westminster R.C Diocese Trustee). Erection of a New Two Storey Religious Education / Training Centre for use by the Diocese of Westminster with Ancillary Overnight Residential Accommodation in the Grounds of Waxwell Farm House (Use Class C2); Alterations to the Roof and a Single Storey Extension to the Existing Assembly Hall Building to Provide a Refectory and Kitchen; Demolition of Existing Triple Garage Fronting Waxwell Lane; Retention of the Existing Accesses on Waxwell Lane and Uxbridge Road; Utilising the Existing Car Park and Associated Landscaping.

 

The officer advised the Committee that a structural report had been sought which confirmed that the rotunda building was structurally sound.  It was noted that as the site was identified as a Site of Nature Conservation importance, the proposed use was considered acceptable with a condition that a brown roof with gravel be provided for biodiversity.

 

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

 

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

 

321 STATION ROAD, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/1197/14 (Mr Hiten Shah). Extension of the Existing Building on the Site to Provide Four Storey Building Fronting Station Road. Extension of Basement and Part Redevelopment of the Site to Provide Part Single Storey Building and Part Six Storey Building Fronting Havelock Place Comprising Flexible Retail/Medical/Commercial Ground Floor Unit (Classes A1/A2/D1/B1) Fronting Havelock Place; 26 Residential Units (Use Class C3) on the Upper Floors; Provision of Landscaping Refuse and Cycle Storage; External Alterations.

 

In response to a question, it was noted that English Heritage was not a statutory consultee in relation to this development.

 

DECISION: 

 

1.                  GRANTED permission for the development as described on the application and submitted plans, as amended by the addendum, subject to the modification of the Section 106 agreement dated 22 November 2012, subject to the conditions and informatives reported;

 

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 modifications to the Section 106 Agreement not be completed by 16 October 2014, 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 to grant the application was unanimous.

 

19 HIGH STREET, WEALDSTONE, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/2418/12 (Mr Nilesh Lukka). Demolition of Existing Public House (Use Class A4) and Redevelopment to Provide Part 3 Part 4 and Part 5 Storey Building Comprising 27 Flats and Ground Floor Retail Space (Use Class A1) 17 Car Parking Spaces Cycle Parking and Landscaping.

 

In response to questions, it was noted that:

 

·                     a condition regarding restriction of access to the car park in order to design out crime was agreed;

 

·                     due to the town centre environment, proximity to the station and the existing car parking zone, no traffic problems were anticipated;

 

·                     the condition that no works should commence until details were submitted to the LPA would include, amongst other aspects, the installation of the gates.

 

DECISION: 

 

1.                  GRANTED permission for the development as described on the application and submitted plans, as amended by the addendum, subject to the conditions and informatives reported, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement by 16 January 2015, and an additional condition as follows:

 

Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted, measures to minimise the risk of crime in a visually acceptable manner and meet the specific security needs of the application site / development shall be installed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Any such measures should follow the design principles set out in the relevant Design Guides on the Secured by Design website: http://www.securedbydesign.com/guides/index.aspx and shall include the following requirements:

 

1.                  all main entrance doorsets  and communal entrance doorsets shall be made secure to standards, independently certified, set out in PAS 24:2007 or WCL 1 'Security standard for domestic doorsets';

 

2.                  all windowsets on the ground floor of the development and those adjacent to flat roofs or large rainwater pipes (downpipes) shall be made secure to standards, independently certified, set out in BS 7950:1997 or WCL 4 'Security standard for domestic windowsets'.

 

Following implementation the works shall thereafter be retained.

 

REASON:  In the interests of creating safer and more sustainable communities and to safeguard amenity by reducing the risk of crime and the fear of crime, in accordance with policy DM 2 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), and Section 17of the Crime & Disorder Act 1998.

 

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 16 January 2015, 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 to grant the application was unanimous.

 

17 GLANLEAM ROAD, STANMORE

 

Reference:  P/3175/13 (Mr J Halai). Three Storey Detached Dwellinghouse With Single Storey Rear Projection and Basement (Retrospective Application); Proposed Alterations Including Removal of Front Atrium and Reduction to Second Floor.

 

It was noted that the application had been deferred from the 18 December 2013 Planning Committee meeting to enable officers to have further discussions with the applicant, so as to address concerns raised by neighbours.  It was noted that an appeal against demolition had been dismissed as there had been no alternative scheme to consider.

 

Members were informed that advice from the structural engineer and building control was that the setting back of the first floor would, although feasible, result in significant financial cost as the property would require complete remodeling and the loss of two bedrooms.

 

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

 

The proposed development, by reason of the excessive size, bulk and proximity to the site boundary, in comparison with neighbouring properties is unduly obstructive, overbearing in the street scene, unsatisfactory relationship with neighbouring properties, to detract from the character and appearance of the area.  The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy 7.4B of the London Plan.

 

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

 

The Committee received representations from objectors, Purshoteam Gami and Maurice Leaman, and a representative of the Applicant, Malcolm Pawley.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission for the development as described on 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 as follows:

 

Councillors Graham Henson, Barry Kendler, Kairul Kareema Marikar and Ann Whitehead voted for the application.

 

Councillors June Baxter, Stephen Greek and Norman Stevenson voted against the application

 

CLOISTER WOOD, 540 UXBRIDGE ROAD, HATCH END

 

Reference:  P/1163/14 (Mr & Mrs TS & FT Sheikh). Extensions and Alterations to All Six Flats within the Building to Include:- Front Extension and Porch; Single and Two Storey Rear Extensions; First Floor Rear Extension and Alterations to Rear Roof Elevation; External Alterations; Replacement Retaining Wall with Railings to Front Boundary; Timber Fence and Alterations to  Side Boundaries Cycle and Refuse Storage and Associated  Landscape Works.

 

In response to questions, it was noted:

 

·                     there are a variety of different building styles in this area; the design of the existing property was not replicated in the area.  Alterations and additions to the property would not conflict with the character of the area;

 

·                     it was not unusual for flats on upper floors to have communal amenity space and the existing amenity space layout was communal.  The communal area would be fenced off and maintained;

 

·                     anti social behaviour issues could not be addressed by planning law.  The Planning Committee could only deal with material planning considerations.  The Planning Committee was, therefore, unable to control who lived at the property;

 

·                     no change to the screening of the back gardens was proposed.  There would be no additional overlooking over and above the existing;

 

·                     space was available in the local highway network for overspill parking.  The proposed six parking spaces were considered to be of credible size.

 

The officers further advised that:

 

·                     the planning appeal referred to was of materially different circumstances to the application under consideration;

 

·                     with regard to the fire risk, the building regulation process would secure betterment.

 

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

 

1.                  The proposed development, by reason of unacceptable design, scale and massing would represent an inappropriate form of development and be incongruous and overbearing in the street scene which would detract from the established pattern of development, the character of the locality and amenity of the local residents contrary to London Plan 7.4B and 7.6B, DM1 and DM26 of the Development Management Policies  and CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy;

 

2.                  the proposed development provided insufficient private amenity space to the detriment of the amenities of the future occupiers of the site and character of the area contrary to policy DM1, DM27 and DM26 of the Development Management Policies.

 

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

 

The Committee received representations from an objector, Mahesh Patel, and a representative of the Applicant, David Kann.

 

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

 

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

 

Councillors Graham Henson, Barry Kendler, Kairul Kareema Marikar and Ann Whitehead voted for the application.

 

Councillors June Baxter, Stephen Greek and Norman Stevenson voted against the application.

 

NEWTON FARM NURSERY, INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOL, RAVENSWOOD CRESCENT, SOUTH HARROW

 

Reference:  P/1885/14 (Harrow Council). Construction of a Single and Two Storey Building to North of Existing School with Balustrades at Roof Level; Associated Works to Include Alterations to Layout of Existing Car Park and Additional Parking Spaces; New Hard Play Areas; Hard and Soft Landscaping; New Internal Boundary Treatment; Re-Siting of Poly Tunnel and Cycle Store (Involving Removal of Existing Mobile Building and Demolition of Existing Attached Conservatory) (In Association with the Expansion of the Existing Primary School from a One Form Entry Primary School to a Two Form Entry Primary School). 

 

In response to a question, the Committee was advised that a parking assessment would be undertaken to identify any hotspots and propose mitigation measures.

 

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

 

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

 

NORBURY FIRST AND MIDDLE SCHOOL, WELLDON CRESCENT, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/1961/14 (Harrow Council). Provision of One Temporary Mobile Building.

 

The Committee noted that the permission sought was for one year to enable pupils to decant in order for building work to proceed.

 

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

 

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

 

WOODLANDS FIRST AND MIDDLE SCHOOL, BRANSGROVE ROAD, EDGWARE, AND CAMROSE PRIMARY SCHOOL WITH NURSERY, ST DAVIDS DRIVE, EDGWARE

 

Reference:  P/1960/14 (Harrow Council). Construction of a Single Storey Extension to Woodlands Primary School to West of Existing School Building; Associated Works to Include New Hard Play Areas; Hard and Soft Landscaping; External Alterations; New Car Parking Spaces (In Association With the Expansion of the School from 96 Pupils to 120 Pupils by 2017) ;

Construction of Single Storey Extensions to Camrose Primary School to South West and North West of Existing Building; Associated Works to Include Ramps and Canopies; Hard and Soft Landscaping; New Play Areas Boundary Treatment (In Association with the Expansion of the School from 240 Pupils to 470 Pupils by 2017).

 

In response to questions, the Committee was informed that the officers would assess the parking situation and recommend parking restrictions if appropriate.  Two parking enforcement vehicles would ensure that enforcement of parking restrictions.  In addition, the officers would undertake discussions with teachers and parents regarding ‘walking buses’.

 

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

 

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

 

53 - 61 COLLEGE ROAD, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/1883/14 (Harrow The Hub Investments Ltd). Removal of Existing 8th Floor Plant Room and Construction of a New 8th Floor to Create 9 Flats (Use Class C3); External Alterations to the Existing Building Including Installation of Cladding, Addition of Balconies and Canopy Over Entrance; Single Storey Infill Extension at Ground Floor Level Within the Open Well to Provide a Private Gym (Use Class D2) for the Building; Associated Landscaping; Render to Existing Boundary Walls to Match Building.

 

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

 

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

 

HARROW MAGISTRATES COURT, ROSSLYN CRESCENT, HARROW

 

Reference:  P/1228/14 (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).

 

The officer reported that a further site visit had taken place and two further original doors had been removed.  The amendments proposed by the applicant, which were listed in the report, were not sufficient to ameliorate the harm caused.

 

DECISION:  REFUSED permission for the development as described on the application and submitted plans, for the reasons given in the report.

 

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