Council services by letter

Agenda item


Planning Applications Received

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.




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.


Following a question from a Member, an officer advised that the proposed access track would be 7.4 metres wide, and would be sufficiently wide to accommodate heavy goods vehicles (HGVs).


Following a question from a Member, the Chair advised that the plans took into account the fact that the access ramp above the culvert would need to be strong enough to support HGV traffic.


DECISION:  GRANTED Permission subject to conditions and informatives, as amended by the addendum; and the completion of a Section 106 agreement with the heads of terms set out below (subject to further negotiation and agreement), as amended by the addendum.  Authority to 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.


Heads of Terms


Offsetting of Biodiversity and Heritage Impacts


1.                  Payment of a contribution (£10,000) towards:


1.1.           Removal of scrub to the north of the lake and the re-instatement of species rich acid grass land in this location;


1.2.           Removal of trees to the north of the lake to re-establish views from Bentley Priory House towards the lake.


2.                  Legal Fees: Payment of Harrow Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the legal agreement; and


3.                  Planning Administration Fee: Payment of £500 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 unanimous.




Reference: P/3500/14 (Mr B Radia) Description: Re-Cladding Of Existing Elevations; Demolition Of Existing Single / Two-Storey Wing On The Northern Side Of The Building; New Fenestration And Raising The Roof Height Of The Existing Community Centre (Retrospective)


Following questions from Members, officers advised that the proposed scheme would not impact negatively on residential amenity, as it did not overlook any primary windows, the nearest residential occupier was 16 metres away and the nearest residential house was 32 metres away.


Following questions from Members regarding how the proposals would impact on traffic issues, the Chair stated that traffic related issues were not relevant  considerations as there would be no ‘change of use’ of the building, and the Committee could not therefore impose any restrictions to the application.


DECISION:  GRANTED permission subject to the conditions and informatives reported.


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

Supporting documents: