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.

 

In accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the Supplemental Agenda containing an additional item for consideration (Site of Summerhouse Lake, Bentley Priory, The Common, Stanmore) was admitted late to the agenda.  The reason was because Bentley Priory (the land to which this application related) was solely owned by the Council. Planning obligations were legally enforceable against the owner(s) and any person that had an interest (including their successors in title) in the land to which they related.  This meant that only owners and those having an interest in the land could enter into obligations.  The Environment Agency, only had a right granted by the Council under a Deed of Grant dated 11 August 2008 to flood land at Summer House Lake, Bentley Priory, Common Road, Stanmore.  They did not have a legal interest in the land for the purposes of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

RESOLVED:  That authority be given to the Head of Planning to issue the decision notices in respect of the applications considered.

 

MARLBOROUGH PRIMARY SCHOOL, MARLBOROUGH HILL, HARROW

 

Reference: P/4162/14 (Harrow Council). Description: Demolition of Existing Primary School Buildings and Redevelopment to Provide a Single, Two and Three Storey Building for a New 3 Form Entry Primary School and Nursery; Associated Landscaping to Include Hard and Soft Play Areas; Partial Boundary Treatment Alternations; Provision of Roof Plant; Alteration to Car Parking Layout and Provision of Cycle Storage; New Vehicle Access from Marlborough Hill and Badminton Close.

 

An officer explained that this application only contained variations to the planning permission which had already been approved for this development.  The proposed variation to the granted development would be further away from Badminton Close.  Comments raised by the Environmental Health team had been addressed through the introduction of a relevant condition.

 

The Committee received representations from an objector, Pamela Howarth, a representative of the Applicant, David Brook and Councillor Simon Brown.

 

DECISION: GRANTED planning permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans subject to 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 MUSEUM, (TITHE / GREAT BARN), HEADSTONE MANOR RECREATION GROUND, PINNER VIEW, HARROW

 

Reference: P/3758/14 (Headstone Manor Museum & Heritage Centre). Description: Change of Use of Tithe Barn (Great Barn) from Museum (Use Class D1) to Assembly & Leisure (Use Class D2) and Associated External Alterations Already Approved Under Applications P/2967/13 (Listed Building Consent) and P/3369/13. Provision of an Overflow Car Park (Up to an Additional 140 Spaces) to the east of Existing Car Park and Alterations to Existing Car Park.

 

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

 

 

48 PINNER ROAD, HARROW

 

Reference: P/3555/14 (Mr P Kothari). Description: Change of Use from Retail (Use Class A1) to Massage and Spa Centre (Sui Generis) Single Story Rear Extension Incorporating Enclosure of External Suitcase to Dwelling Above; External Alterations.

 

Following questions from the Committee an officer advised there were similar uses within the borough (holistic and complimentary massage therapy premises) and the conditions attached to the proposed permission were appropriate.  If a change of use were to occur away from the permitted use then the condition recommended would be enforceable.

 

The Committee received representations from Councillor Simon Brown.

 

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.

 

 

5 PAINES CLOSE, PINNER

 

Reference: P/4336/14 (Mr & Mrs P Reed). Description: Replacement Two Storey Dwellinghouse with Basement Integral Garage, Parking and Landscaping (Demolition of Dwellinghouse).

 

Following questions and comments from Members of the Committee, officers advised the following:

 

·                    there were eyebrow dormers at a neighbouring property;

 

·                    in officers’ view it was difficult to demonstrate that the proposal would have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties;

 

·                    the footprint of the proposed development would be larger than what was currently at the site but that sufficient space would be maintained around the building to ensure the character of the area would not be compromised unreasonably;

 

·                    it was not believed that the proposed development would be out of character with the area;

 

·                    details of the materials to be used in the proposed development would have to be approved the Local Planning Authority due to relevant conditions;

 

·                    the resultant building would have an overall width of 13.7 metres;

 

·                    each application was assessed on its own merits. Different policy considerations could have to be taken into account even in the event that properties were on the same road;

 

·                    additional conditions relating to the protection of trees at the site and having glazed windows on the northern flank of the proposed development would be appropriate.

 

The Committee received representations from an objector, Sonia Harle, a representative of the Applicant, Adrienne Hill and Councillor Stephen Wright.

 

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

 

The proposed development, by reason of design and excessive scale, bulk and height, would cause unacceptable harm to the character of the area, contrary to policies DM1 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan, CS1.B of the Core Strategy and 7.4 (B) of the London Plan.

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

 

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

 

1)                 Insertion of one extra condition to read as follows:-

 

“Notwithstanding the approved plans, the development hereby permitted shall not commence (including any demolition works) until tree protection measures regarding the adjacent trees to the front of the site on the grass verge has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

 

REASON:  To ensure the protection of the trees during the construction works to safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policy DM22 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).”

 

2)                 An amendment to condition 10  to read as follows:-

 

“The glazing in the southern flank wall serving the kitchen and northern flank wall of the conservatory, shall be of purpose made obscure glass and shall thereafter be retained in that form.

 

REASON:  To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.”

 

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

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, Barry Kendler, Kairul Kareema Marikar and Anne Whitehead voted for the application.

 

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

 

 

SITE OF SUMMERHOUSE LAKE, BENTLEY PRIORY, THE COMMON, STANMORE

 

Reference: P/4038/13 (Mr Brian Izzard). Description: Permanent Works – Construction of An Access Track from Masefield Avenue to Summerhouse Lake for Use by Environment Agency Vehicles to Access Summerhouse Lake, a Statutory Reservoir Under the Reservoirs Act 1975; Replacement Entrance Gates at Masefield Avenue; Lowering of Concrete Ramp Which Passes Over the Existing Culvert at Masefield Avenue; Laying of Services.

 

Temporary Works – Alternative Entrance for Walkers at East of Existing Entrance Gates; Contractors Compound and Materials Store.

 

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.