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 Head of Planning to issue the decision notices in respect of the applications considered.

 

2-12 NORTHWICK PARK ROAD, HARROW, HA1 2NT (APPLICATION 1/01)

 

Reference: P/0291/12 – (Grangebrook Ltd).  Demolition Of Existing Buildings; Re-Development To Provide Part Single, Part Three Storey Building With Basement For Use As A Hotel Comprising 118 Guest Rooms, Restaurant And Bar, Meeting Rooms, Staff Facilities And Offices (Use Classes C1/A3/A4); Provision Of 38 Car Parking Spaces, Off-Street Servicing And Landscaping; Refuse And Cycle Storage; Erection Of 2.1m Palisade Metal Fence Along Boundary.

 

Members discussed the parking capacity of the site and the proposals with concern expressed that the draft travel plan was inadequate and that guests of the hotel could resort to parking on neighbouring streets, with the £10k allocated to extension or alteration of the controlled parking zone being insufficient.  The Committee was advised that there was no record of parking issues with the current capacity of the hotel and reminded that, were issues to arise, it would be within the power of the hotel’s owners to remove some of the landscaping and increase the number of spaces on site should they wish to do so.  The suggestion was made that when the travel plan was returned statistics should be sought on how guests travelled to the hotel.

 

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

 

1)                 the proposed development by reason of its excessive size, bulk and massing would be visually obtrusive and overbearing and would not respect the character and design of the adjacent properties contrary to Policy 7.4b of the London Plan and saved Policy D.4 of Harrow’s Unitary Development Plan;

 

2)                 the proposed additional bedrooms and associated additional hotel use would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, particularly No. 59 Gayton Road, contrary to saved Policy D.5 of Harrow’s Unitary Development Plan and Policy 7.2b of the London Plan;

 

3)                 the inadequate provision of parking arrangements for extra car use generated by the additional number of bedrooms and consequent parking on the surrounding roads would be detrimental to the amenities of the residents in the surrounding properties contrary to Policies 6.11 and 6.13E of the London Plan and to saved policy T.13 of Harrow’s Unitary Development Plan.

 

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

 

DECISION:

 

(1)               GRANTED planning permission, as amended by the addendum, subject to conditions and informatives reported and the completion of a Section 106 agreement by 02 May 2012;

 

(2)               authority be given 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 the legal agreement;

 

(3)               that the Section 106 agreement Heads of Terms should cover the following matters:

 

(i)                 Public realm improvements: Payment of £10,000 towards the extension and/or alteration of the  Controlled Parking Zone [prior to the first use of the development];

 

(ii)               Harrow Employment and Training Initiatives: Contribution of £14,000 towards local training and employment initiatives prior to commencement of development;

 

(iii)             the submission of a Recruitment Training and Management Plan;

 

(iv)             Legal Fees:  Payment of Harrow Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the legal agreement; and

 

(v)               Planning Administration Fee:  Payment of £1,200 administration fee for the monitoring of and compliance with this agreement.

 

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

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, Thaya Idaikkadar, Jerry Miles and Sachin Shah voted to approve the application.

 

Councillors Stephen Greek, Joyce Nickolay and Anthony Seymour voted against.

 

21 WOOD END ROAD, HARROW, HA1 3PW (APPLICATION 2/01)

 

Reference:  P/3193/11 – (Mr & Mrs B Valibeik).  Demolition Of Existing Bungalow; Re-Development Comprising New Two Storey Building To Provide Four Flats; Parking, Refuse And Landscaping.

 

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

 

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

 

354-356 PINNER ROAD, HARROW, HA2 6DZ (APPLICATION 2/02)

 

Reference: P/3481/11 – (Genesis Housing Association).  New Shopfronts In Association With The Conversion Of Existing One Single Retail Unit Into Three Retail Units; Front Ramp Steps And Handrails And External Alterations.

 

Whilst noting that it was not a material planning consideration, Members expressed great concern about how this site might or might not have been marketed and the implications of the draft Local Development Order on potential changes of use were discussed.  The Chair stated that he would ask the Council’s Economic Development Unit to consider the marketing of this development.

 

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

 

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

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, Thaya Idaikkadar, Jerry Miles and Sachin Shah voted to approve the application.

 

Councillors Stephen Greek, Joyce Nickolay and Anthony Seymour abstained.

 

35-39 CANNING ROAD, WEALDSTONE, HA3 7SP (APPLICATION 3/01)

 

Reference: P/3236/11 – (Mr Mubashir Shazad).  Retention Of Existing Canopy; Amendments To The Opening Hours To Allow Car Sales And Car Wash To Operate From 09:00-19:00 Hours (Monday To Sunday And Bank Holidays) Between 1 March And 31 October And From 09:00-17:30 Hours (Monday To Sunday And Bank Holidays) Between 1 November And 28 February.

 

The Committee was advised that Planning Officers had been passed a letter relating to the application that had allegedly been sent under a false name and that they would be investigating this. 

 

DECISION:  REFUSEDplanning permission for the development described in the submitted plans and application for the following reason:

 

REASON:  The continued use of the site solely for the purposes of a car washing business, and the proposed extended opening hours, by reason of its intensified use within close proximity of neighbouring residential properties and proposed operating hours during unsociable hours, would give rise to an unreasonable level of noise and disturbance, which would prejudice the residential amenities of the nearby residents, contrary to policy 7.15B of The London Plan (2011) and saved policy EP25 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (2004).

 

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