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.

Minutes:

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.

 

1/01 - 221 MARSH ROAD, PINNER (FORMER THE GEORGE PUBLIC HOUSE)

 

Reference: P/ 4013/14 (Mr Stewart Braddock) Description: Redevelopment: To Provide Part  Four, Part Six Storey Building Comprising 25 Flats; Flexible Commercial Use (Classes A1/A2/A3/A4) On Ground Floor; Parking, Bin/Cycle Storage,  Landscaping And Rear Communal Amenity Space; Solar Panels On Rooftop

 

Following questions from Members, an officer advised that:

 

·                    No windows would be overlooking the railway on the first floor.  Potential vibrations from passing trains would be limited through design solutions.

 

The Committee received representations from Councillor Chris Mote.

 

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

 

1.                  The proposal, by reason of excessive height, scale, and bulk, would be overbearing and would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area, the neighbouring Pinner High Street Conservation Area, and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan, CS1.B and CS1.D of the Core Strategy, and DM1 and DM7 of the local Plan.

 

2.                  The proposal provides insufficient off-street car parking in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the amenity of local streets, contrary to policy DM42 of the Local Plan.

 

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

 

DECISION:  GRANTED permission subject to authority being delegated to the Divisional Director of Planning in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and issue of the planning permission, as amended by the addendum and subject to minor amendments to the conditions or the legal agreement.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was by a majority of votes. 

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, Barry Kendler, Sachin Shah and Anne Whitehead voted for the application.

 

 

1/02 - ST MICHAEL’S CHURCH, 95 BISHOP KEN ROAD, HARROW WEALD

 

Reference: P/3450/14 (Asra Housing Group) Description: Redevelopment: Four Two Storey Semi Detached Dwellings With Attached Car Ports; Part Three/Part Two Storey Building For Eight Flats, Additional Parking, Associated Cycle And Refuse Storage And Hard And Soft Landscaping; Provision Of New Boundary Treatment; Part Demolition And Reconstruction Of Adjoining Community Hall; Single Storey Extensions To Frontage Of Church And Southern And Northern Elevations; External Alterations To Existing Church; New Vehicular Access From Bishop Ken Road

 

Following questions from Members, an officer advised that:

 

·                    the application had the support of the Highways authority.  The travel assessment had shown that there was sufficient on-street parking available and there were no parking restrictions in the area.  The PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) rating of 1B awarded to the site was within acceptable limits and cycle parking would be available on the site;

 

·                    a number of conditions would address any issues relating to the boundary between the proposed development and neighbouring properties and landscaping matters had been addressed in the addendum;

 

·                    the proposed development had the support of the conservation officer. Although a locally listed building, Wykeham Hall, which would be demolished, was not statutorily listed and was not located in a Conservation area;

 

·                    condition 20 required that a detailed light strategy be submitted for the proposed development;

 

·                    the development would be made secure in accordance with Metropolitan Police requirements.  A further condition requiring the site to be secure by design could be added;

 

·                    officers considered that the potential benefits of the proposed development would outweigh any dis-benefits.

 

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

 

1.                  The proposed block of flats, by reason of excessive scale and bulk and close proximity to the boundaries of neighbouring properties, will have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and the character of the area, contrary to policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan, CS1.B of the Core Strategy and DM1 of the Local Plan;

 

2.                  The proposal provides insufficient off-street car parking in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, in an area of low public transport accessibility, contrary to policies CS1.S of the Core Strategy and DM42 of the Local Plan.

 

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

 

The Committee received representations from an objector, Ms Suzanne Fenn, who spoke on behalf of residents of Adderley Road, the applicant’s agent, Alun Evans.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED planning permission subject to conditions, as amended by the addendum and the completion of a Section 106 agreement by 11 May 2015.   Delegated 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.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was by a majority of votes. 

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, Barry Kendler, Sachin Shah and Anne Whitehead voted for the application.

 

 

2/01 - 88 SUFFOLK ROAD, HARROW

 

Reference: P/5043/14 (Mr Rajeev Pandey) Description: Two Storey Side To Rear Extension; Single Storey Side Extension: External Alterations

 

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

1.                  The proposal would be of excessive scale, height and bulk, causing harm to the character of the area and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to policies 7.4 of the London Plan, CS1.B of the Core Strategy and DM1 of the Local Plan.

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

 

The Committee received representations from Janet Mote.

 

DECISION:  GRANTED planning permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to condition(s). 

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was by a majority of votes. 

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, Barry Kendler, Sachin Shah and Anne Whitehead voted for the application.

 

 

2/02 - 4 SWEETMANS AVENUE, PINNER

 

Reference: P/4705/14 (Miss Bela Shah) Description: Single Storey Side Extension; Single And Two Storey Rear Extension; Front Porch; External Alterations

 

Following questions from Members, an officer advised that:

 

·                    the front of the property was south facing.  Officers were of the view that there would not be any detrimental impact in terms of lighting or shadow.  Any impact at the rear of the property would be minimal.  The plans were fully compliant with building research establishment guidance;

 

·                    under the proposed plans, there would be no increase in bulk at the front of the property and the view from the front of would remain the same.  The proposed extension at the rear was SPD (Supplementary Planning Documents) compliant and any increase in bulk would not be disproportionate.  The proposal to introduce a gabled roof would improve the street view.

 

The Committee received representations from an objector, Mr Bill Garvey and Councillor Chris Mote.

 

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

 

1.                  The proposal, by reason of excessive scale and bulk, would harm the character of the area and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to policies 7.4 of the London Plan, CS1.B of the Core Strategy and DM1 of the Local 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 condition(s). 

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was by a majority of votes. 

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, Barry Kendler, Sachin Shah and Anne Whitehead voted for the application.

 

 

2/03 - 296 KENTON LANE, HARROW

 

Reference: P/4543/14 (Mr S Shah) Description: Conversion Of Dwelling house Into Two X Two-Bedroom Self Contained Flats; Single Storey Side To Rear Extension; Front And Rear Access Ramps; Boundary Fences And Gates; Landscaping, Refuse And Cycle Storage; External Alterations

 

Following questions from Members of the Panel, an officer stated that:

 

·                    the previous application, which had proposed the building of 3 flats had been refused.  The current application proposed the building of 2 flats, which was deemed acceptable.  The construction of 3 flats would have required the provision of additional parking.  Under the current proposals, an accessible parking space would be provided and 50% of the area at the front of the development would be landscaped.

 

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

 

1.                  The proposal would be an over-intensive use of the property which, by reason of increased noise, disturbance and general activity, would detract from the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, contrary to policy DM1 of the Local Plan;

 

2.                  The proposed development does not make adequate provision for off street car parking within the curtilage of the site and given the lack of parking availability in surrounding roads, the proposal would be likely to encourage additional and injudicious on street parking on Kenton Lane to the detriment of the free flow and safety of vehicular traffic and pedestrians on the public highway, contrary to policies CS1.S of the Core Strategy and DM42 of the Local Plan.

 

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

 

DECISION:  GRANTED planning permission subject to conditions.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was by a majority of votes. 

 

Councillors Keith Ferry, Barry Kendler, Sachin Shah and Anne Whitehead voted for the application.

Supporting documents: