development and planning committee · 2013. 3. 6. · davy house, lyons road, harrow part of the...

DEVELOPMENT ANDPLANNINGCOMMITTEE

VOL.3DP5

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMITTEE <N°»* "&* Recommendationarising from, this meeting was submitted to the Quarterly Council meeting on 16 My

MEETING ON 9 JULY 1998 1998)

Chairman: * Councillor .Shah

Councilors: * Alexander* AnastasiaAttiki * Lawrence* Mrs Bath (part meeting, only) * Nickolay(4)* Burchell * Noyce* LCox * Redford (part meeting, only)* Dhannarajah * Remain (3) (part meeting only)* Dighe * Scowen* Frogley * Seymour* Ingrain (7) * Margaret Sims* MrsEjnnear - * Thammaiah(l) (part meeting only)* Knowies(l)

* Denotes Member present (1), (3), (4), (7) denotes category of Reserve Member

PART I - RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION" I: Pinner Youth Centre (The Henry Jackson Centred 5 Cecil Park, Pinner - -

Your Committee has considered a recommendation from the Planning Applications Sub-Committee (West) at Its meeting on 6 July 1998 in, respect, of ihe terms by which the Pinner Youth Centre was to be used as a temporary First School following the granting of planning; permission in principle at the Sub-Committee meeting on 17 February 1998 for such use for a one year period subject to1 a legal agreement The Harrow Jewish Day Trust, on behalf of the United Synagogue Trust Ltd had expressed concern at the heads of terms of the legal agreement in, respect of the cessation of the school use by 15.00 hours each day as they felt this would not give them sufficient time to deliver the National Curriculum if the use ceased at 15.00 hours. They had requested an extension, of the approved school hours to 15.45 hours. The Sub-Committee at its: meeting, had- resolved to recommend that the cessation of the school use, as set out in the heads, of terms of the legal agreement, remain at 15.00 hours each day.

Prior to considering this recommendation,, your Committee heard, representations from an objector and the applicant. The objector was, concerned that as, long a, period as possible should be kept between the closing times, of -fins School and Reddiford School to avoid, the problems of traffic congestion in Cecil Park. Responding, the appEcant referred to' proposals to stagger start times with Reddiford School to reduce congestion problems. He also made reference to the feet that Ihe 15.00 hours restriction did not alow the school to deliver the National Curriculum and he also referred to the memorandum of support, for the request from Harrow's Education Property and Resources Manager for proposals, to allow the finishing, time of the School to be between 3.45 and 4.00 pm.

Having raised a number of questions1 with the applicant, Members then, discussed, the request toextend the approvedhours.

It was moved and seconded mat the legal agreement be varied, by removing ihe requirement for the school use to cease at 15.00 hours and, instead allowing, the school, use to cease at any time other than between the hours of 15.15 and 1530., It was argued that this: compromise would, minimise inconvenience to local residents whilst being acceptable to the applicant. Other Members however considered that the hours as approved (ie between 08.20 and, 15.001 hours) allowed sufficient time for the fall, delvery of the National Curriculum,, with additional, time for other activities: also being allowed for, whilst at the same time ensuring, mat local, residential, amenity were protected, by avoiding conflict with the finishing time of Reddiford School, In this respect reference was made to information about the start and finish times of Reddiford, School which had been requested by the Chairman. Following further debate and, upon being put to1 a, vote, the proposal to1 vary the legal agreement as detailed above was lost. Accordingly,, it was:

DP 6 VOL.3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

Resolved to RECOMMEND:

That the recommendation from the Planning Applications Sub-Committee (West) (6 July 1998) be confirmed and the cessation of the school use, for the temporary First School located in the Pinner Youth Centre, as set out in the heads of terms of the legal agreement remain at 15.00 hours each day.

[Notes: (1) This recommendation is submitted in accordance with a requisition under Standing Order 43(a).

(2) Councillors Alexander, L Cox, Mrs Kinnear, Knowles, Nickolay, Noyce, Remain, Scowen and Seymour wished to be recorded as having voted against the above recommendation on the grounds that it was unreasonable and in favour of the amendment as detailed in the preamble above.

(3) Councillor Remain declared a non-pecuniary interest which was neither clear nor substantial and he remained, spoke and voted on this item.]

PART H-MINUTES

7. Welcome; This being the first Ordinary Meeting of the Committee in the new Council, the Chairman welcomed Members, officers and public to the meeting.

8. Attendance by Reserve Members: RESOLVED: That the attendance of the following appointed Reserve Members be noted:

Members Reserve Member

Councillor Bluston Councillor IngramCouncillor Mrs Bath Councillor Remain (part meeting only)Councillor Howard Councillor NickolayCouncillor Mrs John Councillor KnowlesCouncillor Redford Councillor Thammaiah (part meeting only)

9. Arrangement of Agenda; RESOLVED: That (1) all the items be discussed with the press and public present, save for discussion on the following items which were considered with the press and public excluded for the following reasons:

Item Reason

11. Davy House, Lyons Road, Harrow Part of the discussion related to information underparagraph 12(b) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) being advice to. be taken in connection with the determination of a matter affecting the Authority.

22. Any Other Business - The discussion related to information under 427 & 431 Ravners Lane, Pinner Paragraph 12(a) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the

Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) being advice to be taken in connection with any legal proceedings by the Authority.

(2) in accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) 1985 the following late items be admitted to the agenda for the reasons indicated below:

(i) Addendum:

Report of the Chief Planning Officer relating to various items on the Agenda and based on information received after its despatch;

(ii) Planning Applications Sub-Committee (West) - 6 July 1998 - Recommendation 1: Pinner Youth Centre (The Henry Jackson Centre) - 5 Cecil Park. Pinner

Proximity of Sub-Committee Meeting to this meeting and to avoid any delay in dealing with the matter. (See Recommendation I).

DEVELOPMENT AWPLANMNG - VOL. 3 DP 7

(iii) Any Other Business - 427 & 431 Ravages Lane

To enable consideration to be given to the recent appeal decision on this application. (SeeMJnute27).

(Note: There were no public questions;, or deputations received at the meeting).

10. Minutes: RESOLVED: That (I) me minutes of the Special Meetings held, on 17 February and 26 February 1998 and the Ordinary meeting held on I Apr3 1998,, having been, circulated, be signed as 'Correct records;

(2) the minutes of the Special Meeting held on 4 June 1998 be deferred -until printed in the next Council Bound Volume.

11. Petitions: Councilor Roniaih presented a petition on behalf of Councillor Mrs Bath who was unable to be present at the start of the meeting, signed by a number of residents, who were: opposed, to an application for development at: 127-129 London Road,, Stanmore. Concern was. raised, that residents from Copley Close had not been notified and the Chief Planning Officer undertook to ensure that the appropriate notification toolc place.

12. Representations on Planning Applications: RESOLVED: That representations be received in accordance with the agreed procedures in respect of items 8(b), 8(c) and 9(b) on the agenda..

13. Mimrtes in tMs Committee- Cycle: RESOLVED: To note that meetings of the following subsidiary bodies of this Committee have taken place during this Committee cycle:

(a) Planning Applications Sub-Committee (West) - 9 June 1998

(b) Planning Applications Sub-Committee (East) - 16 June 1998

(c) Planning Applications Subcommittee (West) - 6 July 1998

(d) Unitary Development Plan and Review Panel - 18 June 1998

14. Recommendations from Subsidiary Bodies:

(a) Planning Applications Sup-Committee (East) - 16 June 1998 - Recommendation 1 -EAST/402/98/FUL - 86 Spencer Road. WeaMstone: The Sub-Committee had recommended that the above application for the change of use of "the property from residential use to use as a Doctor's Surgery be granted subject to a legal agreement, and conditions. Prior to 'discussing the recommendation,, Members were addressed by an objector and the applicant The objector referred to concerns, bom about increased parking problems due to1 the loss of on-street car parking spaces in Spencer Road and also about the impact: that the off-street car spaces to the rear would: have on the amenity' of the neighbouring residential, property. Security concerns were also raised about: the height of the boundary fence. The applicant responded by saying: that there was a, proven, need for this surgery and the application was supported by the Local Area Health Authority.

During the course of the debate: that followed,, some members raised concerns, about the configuration of the parking spaces and the proximity of these spaces to the junction with The Crossway. Reference was. also made to the loss of residential unit of accommodation and the fact that the .surgery would only be open for a few hours each day. It was. argued, that this proposal was contrary to policy HIS of the UDP.

Other Members supported the application as. there was: a clear need for the surgery as demonstrated by the large petition, signed in favour of "fee proposal The proposal would create very litfle extra traffic and would be welcomed by many local people who currently had to travel some 'distance to visittheir GP.

A proposal that the application be refused on traffic grounds, in that loss of on street car parking spaces together with the configuration of the proposed parking spaces in proximity to the junction of The Crossway would result: in, conditions prejudicial to highway safety, and, also on the grounds that the proposal would result in the loss of a residential property contrary to Policy HIS of the "UDP,, was moved and seconded. Upon being put to a vote, this was-, not agreed.


Accordingly, it was

RESOLVED: That the recommendation from the Planning Applications Sub-Committee (East) on 16 June 1998 be confirmed and the application be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement and conditions as set out in the minutes and as reported to the Sub-Committee meeting.

(Note: Councillors Alexander, L Cox, Mrs Kinnear, Knowles, Nickolay, Noyce, Remain, Scowen and Seymour wished to be recorded as having voted against the above decision and in favour of the amendment to refuse permission as detailed above).

Recommendation 2: - EAST/2Q9/98/FUL - Limes House. Warren Lane. Stanmore:

The Sub-Committee had recommended that the above application for an extension to provide a covered swimming pool be granted subject to the completion of a variation of the legal agreement and to conditions. It was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal constituted overdevelopment in the Green Belt. This was not supported by other Members and, upon being put to a vote, this proposal was not agreed. Accordingly, it was

RESOLVED: That the Recommendation from the Planning Applications Sub-Committee (East) on 16 June be confirmed and the application granted subject to the completion of the variation of the legal agreement and the conditions as set out in the minutes and as reported to the Sub-Committee meeting.

(Note: Councillor Alexander, L Cox, Mrs Kinnear, Knowles, Nickolay, Noyce, Remain, Scowen and Seymour wished to be recorded as having voted against the above decision and in favour of the amendment to refuse permission as detailed above).

(b) Planning Applications Sub-Committee (West) - 6 July 1998 - Recommendation 1 - Pinner Youth Centre (The Henry Jackson Centre), 5 Cecil Park, Pinner

(See Recommendation I).

(c) Unitary Development Plan and Review Panel -18 June 1998

Recommendation 1 - Harrow UDP Review - Analysis of Responses on the Issues Paper:

Recommendation 2 - Harrow UDP Review - Next Stages in the Review Process:

Recommendation 3 - Circular 6/98: Planning and Affordable Housing

Recommendation 4 - Modernising Planning - Improving Arrangements for the Delivery of Local Plans and UDPs

RESOLVED: That the above Recommendations be received and confirmed.

15. Deposited Plans; RESOLVED: That the decisions set out in abbreviated form below be made pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, as appropriate, and the Director of Environmental Services be authorised to issue the appropriate decision notices.

(a) EAST/296/98/FUL - Middlesex and Herts Country Club and Land rear of The Hare Public House, Old Redding - Demolition of Existing Buildings and Construction of Single. Two and Four Storey Buildings to Provide 32 Flats with Roof Terrace, Lower Ground Floor Parking, Gatehouse, Residents' Health Club and Landscaping

RESOLVED: That consideration of the application be DEFERRED for a Member site visit.

DEVELOPMENT AOT1 PLANNING VOL. 3 DP 9

(b) EAST/378/98/LA3 - Whyteways. BrooksMII. Harrow Weald - Change of Use from Care Home for Elderly to Hostel Accommodation (Class C2 to Sui Generis retaining Ground Floor Bay Centre fCIass Dl)

Prior to consideration the application^ a representative of the objectors addressed the Committee- He referred to,, amongst omerthings, concerns about the loss of'privacy, and the 'danger to local residents' security. He considered that the proposal -was detrimental to the character of the area and would result in increased crime. During the coarse of the debate that followed, Members of all groups disassociated themselves from the comments made by the objector. Whilst the majority of the Committee supported the application, several Members indicated they would be voting against the application, not: on planning grounds but on the grounds that they considered the application was unacceptable in social services terms. At the conclusion of the debate, the Chairman thanked all Members for taking such a strong stance agamstracism. Upon being put to a vote, itwas

RESOLVED: That permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions, reported and the following amended condition 2:

The use hereby permitted, shall be discontinued within 2 years ofthe date of mis permission.

(c) EAST/157/9S/FPI, - 4 Marsh Lane. Stanmore - 3 Storey Braiding to Provide 12 Flats, 12 Garages and Parking at Side and Rear

RESOLVED: That permission be granted subject to the conditions and iaformatives reported.

16. Arrangements for Representations by Members of the Public at Planning Committees: TheCommittee received a joint report of the Borough Secretary and Solcitor to the Council and the Chief Planning Officer which reviewed the current arrangements, for dealing with representations by members of me public on planning; applications*. The current procedure liad been adopted by the Development Services Committee on 9 March 1995 and, the report reviewed the way these arrangements, had operated and suggested certain amendments. The report: recommended, that: the time limits for such representations. should in future be strictly enforced, Paragraph 3.1 of the officer report set oat the proposed revised arrangements. The main features were: No requirement for 10 written objections; the system to continue to be "objector-led"; the arrangements; not to apply to applications recommended for "refusal"; at least 48 hours notice to be given by objectors wishing to speak; only one objector per application; and a strict time limit of 5 minutes per speaker with, a one minute warning being, given.

Appendices C and D set out the proposed revised guidance notes for applicants and members of the public. The report stressed that the proposed revised arrangements: needed to be strictly adhered to, in the interests of fairness and, consistency between different objectors, and different, applicants. Any

I system adopted by Members needed to be fair and consistent, and it was noted -feat if 'the procedures.were not applied fairly and consistently, decisions might be subject to challenge on the basis; that they

I were made contrary to the rules of natural justice as some objectors or applicants1 had greater accessto the Committee and therefore greater opportunity to influence the decision.

There was general agreement,, although not unanimous,, that the system should continue to be' "objector led". It was also generally agreed that there should be a 5 minute time Emit and, no

* requirement for 10 written objections, as it was pointed out that, in the vast majority of representations.previously heard by Members, this particular1 requirement had not been met Doubts, were expressed

[' " as to whether the proposed requirement for 48 hours' notice to be given would work in practice. Itwas recognised that, in the past,, objectors; had sometimes turned, up. at a meeting and then at the last

I minute indicated 'they wished to speak Differing views, were expressed on the question, of thearrangements not applying to applications recommended for refusal and also on the restriction of oneobjector per application.

Members agreed that, if at all possible, a consensus: between the groups on the proposal, should be I sought, and in view of this, it was agreed to defer the report: for further discussions, between the

Chairman and the Nominated Members. I

,f • RESOLVED: That (1) the report be deferred for further1 discussions between the Chairman, and j Nominated Members to try to reach agreement on the revised arrangements for Members of public

wishing to make representations on, planning, applications;

"*• (2) a former report be made to'me next meeting of file Committee.


17. Daw House. Lvon Road, Harrow; The Chief Planning Officer reported that a written request had been received from the owners of Davy House to reduce the commuted sum to provide affordable housing as required by the Section 106 agreement in conjunction with a planning permission for 151 flats which had been granted on 14 January 1998 subject to the completion of the legal agreement.

The applicants had stated that they intended to pursue option (ii)(b) of the agreement which required the developer to provide a commuted sum in accordance with Policy H9 of the UDP at the time of issue of the permission (to secure the provision of affordable housing on another site). The applicants had expressed their concern about the amount of money that would need to be paid to meet the Council's Policy H9. This was based on 25% of the total number of habitable rooms created which at the rate of £13,000 per habitable room, totalled £1,222,000. The applicant considered that this sum was "grossly excessive" and would "render the project non-viable". The applicant had offered a payment based on £3,000 for each flat resulting in a total payment of £453,000 which was based on their financial assessment of developing the site and the return on capital. The officer report concluded that the request to reduce the amount of commuted payment was unacceptable and contrary to the provision of the statutory development plan and the accompanying supplementary planning guidance. Following discussion, part of which was held with the press and public excluded (see minute 9) It was:

RESOLVED: That (1) officers be instructed to inform the applicant that the proposed reduced commuted sum would not meet the Council's approved policy and was not therefore acceptable by reason of an insufficient provision of affordable housing;

(2) the applicant be advised that a payment based on a rate of £8000 per habitable room in lieu of on- site affordable housing provision, this being the approved rate at the time the application was submitted, would be acceptable.

18. RAF Stanmore Park - Reference from Housing Committee - 12 March 1998; The Chief Planning Officer reported to Members that in approving the development brief for RAF Stanmore Park, the Development and Planning Committee at its meeting on 1 April 1998 had not agreed the request from the Housing Committee that the affordable housing content for the site be raised from 25% to 50%. Full Council on 23 April 1998 formally considered the Development and Planning Committee's Recommendation to adopt the brief without the Housing Committee's request for the 50% affordable housing. At that meeting on 23 April 1998, following two amendments which had not been carried, this Committee's recommendation was put to the vote and there was an equality of votes for and against and the recommendation was deemed not to have been adopted. Hence this matter was now being brought back to Members of this Committee for reconsideration. In view of the fact that a further report was being made to the September meeting of the UDP and Review Panel following the issue of DETR Circular 06/98 "Planning and Affordable Housing" which would enable Members to consider revisions to the Council's affordable housing policy, it was .

RESOLVED: That consideration of the reference be deferred until the policy on affordable housing is reconsidered.

19. Gildea House. Gildea Close, off Park View, Hatch End; Planning permission for the development of the above site had been granted on 14 May 1996 following the completion of a legal agreement. Clause 2(i) of the agreement included a restriction of occupancy to "the spouses or former spouses (whether separated, divorced or widowed) of service personnel and their dependant children nominated by the SSAFA" unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Members were now advised that the applicants were seeking a variation of this legal agreement to enable occupancy by families nominated by the Council (in addition to the approved service personnel and their dependants).. A Member was anxious to ensure that occupancy was restricted to lone parents with families looking for short term accommodation. It was noted that there would be no increased parking requirements as a result of the amended clause as the development would not become general purpose housing.

DEVELOPMENT ANB PLANMNG VOL., 3 DP 11

RESOLVED: That Clause 2(i) of the legal agreement m respect of application WEST/460/95/FULrelating to restriction of occupancy be amended, to read "the spouses: or former spouses (whether separated, divorced or widowed): of service personnel and their dependant chldren nominated1 by the SSAFA, and other non-service households in similar circumstances (le. separated,, divorced, widowed or single persons and their dependent children) nominated, for short-term tenancies by the London Borough of Harrow".

20. Consultation from Hertsmere Borough Cornell - Centennial Park (former AMenliam Bus WorksX Elstree BOB Soath. Elstree: The Chief Planning Officer reported that this: Council had been consulted by Hertsmere Borough Council on an application relating to Phase 2 of the Centennial Park Commercial Estate at Elstree,, Hertfordshire. Some 10,563 sq metres of floor space was proposed for Bl(c), B2 and B8 purposes. The fioorspace would be contained within six buildings of brick panels and glazed elevations with shallow pitched roofs to a total freight; of 8.6 metres. These proposals complied with the permitted uses of the site for Ight industry, general industry .and storage and distribution. The proposed buildings would be appropriate for these purposes and would relate satisfactorily to those in Phase 1. However, concern was expressed that the landscaping proposals had been withdrawn from, this application. Landscaping was considered to be important to the appearance of the site and the character of the Green Belt,

RESOLVED: That Hertsmere Borough Council be informed that this Council (1) objects, to the withdrawal of landscaping proposals from the current application and, the determination of the application in the absence of such proposals, in view of the importance of early planting; in order to: enhance the character of this Green Belt site and improve the view from Harrow;

(2) emphasises the importance of good quality materials, in the development of this site.

21. Consultation from Hertsmere Borough Cornea - Elstree By-Pass fEast/304/98/CNA): Tie Chief Planning Officer reported mat Harrow had been consulted in respect of a, Planning Application submitted by Hertfordshire County Council for the construction of an, Elstree: By-Pass. The report set out the details of the proposal. It: was considered that there-were two issues for Members to consider. These were: the visual impact and highway and transportation issues.

It was noted that this Council had previously objected to the by-pass scheme on the grounds of the loss of valuable green belt land and the loss of visual amenities of the green belt when viewed from Harrow. As the current proposal was similar to the previous proposal, it was recommended that the same objection be raised. On the question of highway and transportation issues, it was noted that Hertfordshire County Council's assessment of the by-pass using, the County Transportation Study Traffic Model showed that the impact of the by-pass would be relatively localised, and that, "the impact to traffic flows within the London Borough of Harrow would be marginal." Based on the information suppled by the County Council,, it was considered that the traffic impact of the proposed by-pass would be insignificant and, that no objections should be raised on highway issues.

RESOLVED: That Hertfordshire County Council, be informed, that this. Council' considers that the proposal would result in the loss of valuable green, belt, land and would be detrimental to the visual, amenities, of the 'Green Belt when viewed from Harrow.

22. Review of Fees and Charges: At the meeting of the Committee on 1 April 1998* Members; had considered a letter from the Harrow E5Q Trust who had, expressed concern at the scale of copying;charges levied by the Planning Department, The point had been, made mat amenity societies, such as, the Trust often required copies of planning applications and do_cuments in order to, fulfil then: role. It had, been resolved that a report be made to the next meeting, of the Committee examining; the possibility of introducing reduced photo-copying; charges for local amenity societies:., Acrardingly 'Consideration was now given to such a report It was, noted that the basic charge for A4 photocopying was 2£>p per sheet with a further1 scale of charges: for decision notices, and, planning, extracts, in 1997/98 approximately £6,000 had been taken in, the environmental information centre for planning related publication sales and copying charges. The report: stated that whilst it was not, possible to accurately breakdown the actual income accrued, from copying, charges related to local amenity groups, it was not likely to1 be a significant amount,

Some Members considered that this proposal should be agreed, in, principle,, now subject to a, 1st of amenity societies being agreed, by executive action. Other Members felt that, whilst they supported the idea in principle a further report should be made to the next meeting, and in the meantime officers should be instructed to identify criteria which local amenity societies would_have to meet in order to qualfy for a reduced photocopying, charges for inclusion in the report which should, also examine the cost implications of the proposed reduction in charges in the light of the Committee's overall budget The proposal to agree the report in principle now was, not agreed, and accordingly it was

RESOLVED: That a farther report: be made to the next: meeting of the Committee setting out both the criteria which local, amenity societies would have to meet to qualify for a, reduced copying, charge and the cost implications of a possible reduction m the photocopying; charges.


23. Reference from Council (Quarterly) Meeting on 23 April 1998 - Referral of Motions under the Provisions of Standing Order 14ff); Following discussion and upon being put to a vote, it was

RESOLVED: That the reference be noted.

24. Notice of Any Other Business Under Standing Order 34(c): Councillor Scowen had given notice of the following motion which he wished to be placed on the Agenda in accordance with the above Standing Order:

"This Committee instructs officers to reconsider the implementation of highway measures in connection with the school and housing development at the Cannon Lane British Gas/Nursery Site, in order to ensure that highway safety and the amenities of residents are fully protected".

Following discussion on this motion, during which Members from all groups referred to concerns raised by local residents about the highway measures being implemented in respect of this development, it was

RESOLVED: That the morion be agreed.

25. Executive Action; RESOLVED: To note and insofar as may be necessary to confirm the following action that has been implemented following consultation with the Chairman and Nominated Members since the last meeting of the Committee:

(1) Gavton High School - All Weather Pitch (EAST/133/98/LA3)

Granted permission for a replace all-weather pitch with associated fencing and pole lighting subject to the conditions reported;

(2) Proposed development of Food Store with Car Parking, Entrance Square. Access, Highway Work and Landscaping - Site of former Fanum House and Adjoining Land at The Broadway and Rear of Church Road, Stanmore (EAST/961/97/FUD

Granted planning application EAST/961/97/FUL subject to the previously agreed heads of legal agreements and conditions with the deletion of condition 22 and a new head of agreement 20 set out below, and the direction of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

20. "Sainsburys shall submit to the Council prior to commencement of the development, their programme of works, and inform the Council of any subsequent rephasing, so mat the Council can programme its works on-The Broadway multi-storey car park, such that as far as possible the maximum public parking reasonably practicable is available throughout both construction periodsr^The Council, shall use reasonable endeavours to commence works to the multi-storey car park before the retail store is open to the public and accordingly ensure that The Broadway multi-storey car park works are carried out as soon as reasonably practicable taking account of the aim to maximise public car parking throughout bom construction periods."

26. Telecommunications Development:

(i) EAST/485/98/DTD - Telephone Kiosk Outside 132 High Street Wealdstone

(ii) EAST/486/98/DTD - Telephone Kiosk Outside 336 High Road. Harrow Weald

RESOLVED: That prior approval of details of siting and appearance be not required, subject to the following informatives:-

1. INFORMATIVE:

The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements in the attached Considerate Contractor Code of Practice, in the interests of minimising any adverse effects arising from building operations.

DEVELOHkOOT AND PLANNING VOL. 3 BP 13

2. INFORMATIVE:

The applicant is advised fhatthis decision relates only to the planning requirements imposed by the Town and Country Planning, (General, Permitted Development) Order1 1995.

3. INFORMATIVE:

. Hie applicant is advised that a notification to the local highway aathority will be required under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 for opening the highway (Footway) for installation .and any associated ductwork.

27. Any Other Business - Appeal Decision in respect of 427 & 431 Eavners Lane:, Councillor Scowenraised the above matter under "Any Other Business". He referred to a recent Inspector's appeal, decision letter in which permission had been granted, for fee-change of use from Class Al Retail Shops to a Class A3 Restaurant He requested that the Committee give consideration to seeking Counsel's opinion on the merits of challenging this decision. He was also concerned that, despite Members having raised at Committee when the application was discussed the issue of a condition being imposed to exclude use as a pubic house or wine bar, at the appeal the Council had not put forward this suggested, condition in the event that the Inspector was minded to grant permission.

Following discussion in Part H with the press and public excluded (see minute 9),, and upon being put to a vote, it was

RESOLVED: That (1) Counsel's opinion be not sought;

(2) in filtare, where applications for a change of use to Class A3 are refused by Committee and subsequently appealed against, the Council include in, the list of suggested, conditions to1 the Inspector if s/he is minded to grant permission, a condition excluding: use as a public house or wine bar.

28. Termination of Meeting: la accordance with Standing Order 30(g) it was:

BESOLVED: (1) at 10.00pm to continue until 10.15 pm;

(2) at 10.15pm to continue until 10.30pm;

(3) at 1030pm to continue until 10.40pm and the completion of the business.

(Note: The meeting closedat 11.00 pm).

Signed NAVWSHAH (Chairman)

VOL. 3 DP 14

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT AND FL&NNING COMMITTEE

MEEHMG ON 14 OCTOBER 1998

'Chairman: * Councillor Shah

Councillors: Alexander * Howard* MrsAshton(5) * Knowles(l)* AnastasiaAttiid * Lawrence* Mrs Bath * Noyce* Blaston " * O'DeB(4)* Bnrchell * Scowen* LCox * Seymour* Dhaimarajah * Margaret Sims

Dighe* Frogley

* Denotes Member present (1), (4) (5) Denotes 'Category of Reserve Member


RECOM3MENDATION I: Revised Affordable Housing Policy

The Committee received a recommendation from the UDP and Review Panel which proposed the replacement of the current .affordable housing policy with a new policy. Details of this aew policy were set out in the report of the Chief Planning Officer and in the recommendation from the Panel. The Panel was recommending that a threshold of 15 units as suggested by the Housing Committee should be adopted and on larger sites, the provision of up to 50% of the land or units for affordable housing should be sought.

An amendment that the threshold be increased to 20 or more dwellings or residential sites of 0.75 hectares or more, was, upon being put to a vote, not agreed.

The Committee agreed to add an additional criterion and reasoned justification to the new affordable housing policy .as set oat below to reflect current Government thinking on the issue of social exclusion and the need to achieve more balanced communities which were sustainable.

-- ;--aj£ SEEK THE DEVELOPMENT OF A&SXED AND BALANCES COMMUMTY ON LARGER SITES"

Additional Reasoned Justification

, "As mentioned above, Circular 6/98 includes, references to fee need to incorporate a reasonable mix of housing types and sizes to cater for a range1 of housing needs. Furthermore, paragraphs 1 and 2 require local planning authorities to encourage the development of mixed and balanced communities -ia sicler to avoid areas of social exclusion. Whilst me Circular does not specify the means of securing this, and it is clear that it can only be appropriate on larger sites, the intention will be to avoid the over-concentration of any particnlar element of housing within as overall scheme. Accordiagly, just as decisions about what affordable housing types are to be built in order to reflect local housing need on any individual site are thejaibject of discussion and

'.--.' "-~ ." agreeraeatfetweeiiiiie panies'iHvolveQ, ss means of seearEiga mixed 'and balanced coimsiiiHty will also be tike subject of negotiation. The Council will therefore encourage the dispersal of affordable housing throughout any development subject to the policy. "Whilst Registered Social Landlords can manage individual as. well as, larger groups of properties in any scheme, tkere is clear scope for agreeing the appropriate arrangement on any individual site. This could include me 'dispersal of small groups of affordable housing units throughout a large development The Council wffl continue to monitor the effectiveness of agreed developments in achieving Ihe aim of a mixed and balanced community."


That the new policy, as set out in Appendix I to the officer report and as amended by the UDP & Review Panel and subject to fee additional criterion and reasoned justification as detailed above, beadopted for development control purposes.

DP 15 VOL. 3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

(Notes: Councillors Mrs Ashton, Mrs Bath, Howard, Knowles, Seymour arid Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of the amendment to increase the threshold to 20 or 0.75 hectares units and as having abstained on the vote to include the additional criterion).

RECOMMENDATION H; EAST/191/98/FUL - 18 Bentlev Way, Stanmore - Recommendation from Planning Applications Sub-Committee (East) - 27 July 1998

The Planning Applications Sub-Committee at its meeting on 27 July 1998 had recommended that the above application for a single storey rear, two storey side/rear extension, and alterations to the roof with front, side and rear dormers be granted subject to conditions.

Prior to discussing this recommendation Members were addressed by both a representative of the objectors and the applicant's agent. The objector referred to concerns about the development which he considered would adversely affect the character of the road. He also considered that the proposal would result in over development of the site and result in overlooking and he urged the Committee to refuse the application. The applicant's agent responded by stating that the proposal complied with all relevant planning policies and mat it would not result in overlooking. Further, it would remain as a single dwelling house, and was of an appropriate size and design.

It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred for a site visit as it was considered that this was a marginal application and that a site visit would be of benefit in assessing the appropriateness or otherwise of the proposed deyelopment However the majority of the Committee did not support this view as they considered that issues relating to the loss of trees, the bulk and size of the development and concerns about the 2 storey element of the proposal had been satisfactorily addressed. They considered that permission should be granted and that no useful purpose would be served by deferring the application for a site visit

Upon being put to a vote, a proposal that a site visit be held was not agreed. A further amendment that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal would result in both over-development of the site and overlooking to the detriment of neighbouring residential amenity was, upon being put to a vote, not agreed.

Accordingly, it was


That the recommendation from Planning Applications Sub-Committee (East) be confirmed and the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives reported.

(Notes: (1) This recommendation is submitted in accordance with a requisition under Standing order 43 (a);

(2) Councillors Mrs Ashton, Howard, Knowles, Seymour and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of both the amendment to defer the application for a site visit and the subsequent amendment to refuse the application, and as having voted against the above recommendation;

(3) Councillor Mrs Bath declared a non-pecuniary interest, she left the room and took no part in the discussion and voting that followed).

RECOMMENDATION ni; Arrangements for Representations by Members of the Public at planning Committees

Your Committee has considered a joint report of the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council and the Chief Planning Officer which invited Members to consider the arrangements for representations by members of the public at Planning Committees. This report had been deferred for further discussions between the Chairman and Nominated Members at the last meeting to try and reach agreement on the revised arrangements for Members of the public wishing to make representations on planning applications. It was the intention of officers to take away the comments of he Committee and produce a revised draft for approval at the next meeting.

Prior to discussing the report, the Committee received a deputation who requested feat recognised Residents Associations be afforded the opportunity to make representations and comment on major, strategic applications. With regard to the proposed revised arrangements, Members agreed, following discussion and after a series of votes on tabled amendments, the following main features of the scheme: there should be no requirement for 10 written objections; the system should continue to be "objector-led"; the arrangements should not apply to applications recommended "for refusal"; at least 24 hours notice should be given by objectors wishing to speak; only one objector per application to be allowed to speak although in exceptional circumstances the Committee may allow up to 2 objectors to speak; a strict time limit of 3 minutes per speaker be allowed but where major/strategic applications are under discussion, the Committee may use its discretion to increase the time limit up to 5 minutes.

DEVELOPMEOT AND PLANNING VOL.3 BP16

speak; a strict time limit of 3 minutes per speaker be allowed but where major/strategic applications are under discussion, me Committee may use its discretion to incFease the time limit up to 5 minutes.

It was also moved and seconded that a further report be made to the next meeting, examining the ways ia which Residents Associations should have a greater involvement in the planning process^ specifically with regard to maldng representations on major planning applications. Responding to Has amendment, the Chairman advised that the issue of coinmumty involvement was trader consideration across the whole of me Council as. part of Best Value and tie Harrow Partnership process and he considered that it would not be appropriate to deal with this issue on a piecemeal basis as had been proposed. Upon being put to a vote the amendment was lost.


That officers report back to me next meeting of the Committee with me draft scheme for approval,, based on the -comments of the Committee as detailed above.

(Notes: :(1) This Recommendation is submitted in accordance with, a requisition under Standing Order 43(a);

(2) Councillors Mrs Ashton, Mrs Bath,, Howard, Knowles^ Seymour and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted in fevour of the lost amendment to allow both applicants and objectors to make representations on all applications reported to Committees;

(3) Cotmcilors.Mrs Asiiton, Mrs Bam, L Cos, Howard, Knowles,, Noyce, Seymour and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of the following amendments which were lost:

(i) that mere should be no requirement for any notice to be given in advance of the meeting by applicants, and objectors wishing to speak;

(ii) to allow more than, one objector to speak where different objectors/groups of objectors wish tomake entirely different points, and not to limit it to a maximum of 2 speakers;

(in) to report back to- the next meeting on the ways in which the involvement of cesgroups/residents associations in commenting on major/strategic planning, applications can beincreased).

IffiCOMMENBATION IV: RAF Stanmore Park - Reference from Honsmg Committee12 March 1998:

Your Committee gave consideration to a request from the Housing Committee mat the revised Development Brief for RAF Statnaore -P&k-shosld, inter aia, require 50%' of ail dweiingsxHiihe site to be for affordable housing. Members were also asked to consider this reference in 'me light of the UDP & Review Panel's recommended changes, to the Council's affordable housing policy (see RecoBomendasos I). He proposed changes fa the Brief reflected Use Panel's recoramendation so far as the required level of affordable housing was concerned. It also included the other changes requested by me Housing Committee.

The proposed revised Development Brief for RAF1 Stanmore Park incorporated the recommended affordable housing guidelines and represented an up-to-date statement of Council objectives reflecting current and' emerging DDP policy and known service requirements. It would assist the Councp in its negotiations about the redevelopment on the site, both with the MoD, prior to disposal, and also with any future lands owaer. The Brief wouli however, need to take account of the UDP Review process and, if necessary, be further modified in Ight of changes to policy, supplementary planning guidance or new advice emanating from central Government, It was acted Jhatjncreasing fheJevel of affordable hoasiag on the site was likely to result in an increased demand for pupil places in local schools,, depending on the precise type and amount of housing provided. It was therefore proposed that the Education Comiaitfee should be advised of me changes to the Brief and be requested to assess the implications in terms of me potential requirement to allocate part of the site for a new school


That (!) the revised Development Brief for RAF Stanmore Park be approved subject to the modifications as set oat in paragraph 2.2 of me officer report;,

(2) the Housing Committee be advised of the agreed changes to the affordable housing guidelines;, and

(3) the Education Committee be requested to assess the implications of the amended Brief on the potential requirement to allocate part of the site for a new school

DP 17 VOL. 3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

RECOMMENDATION V; Review of Fees and Charges

At the last meeting of this Committee, in response to a letter from the Harrow Hill Trust who had expressed their concern at the scale of copying charges levied by the Planning Department, a report had been submitted seeking Members' views on making exceptions to the Committee's charging policy in respect of local amenity groups. The Committee had agreed the principle of reducing copying charges in relation to specific amenity groups, subject to a further report from officers identifying criteria to nominate the particular groups and also considering the cost implications of any reductions and suggesting appropriate costs.

Accordingly, consideration was given to such a report which sought instructions from the Committee as to whether it wished to make an exception in the case of the four major amenity groups identified in the report, for copying charges relating to planning. A proposal that these four societies be exempted from photocopying charges with immediate effect and that the situation be reviewed in 12 months' time was, upon being put to a vote, not agreed.

Accordingly, it was


That no exception be made in the case of the four major amenity groups for copying charges related to planning documentation.

(Notes: (1) This recommendation is submitted hi accordance with a requisition under Standing Order 43(a);

(2) Councillors Mrs Ashtpn, Mrs Bath, Howard, Knowles, Seymour and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of the amendment as detailed above, and against the above recommendation).

DEYELOPMENT-ANE>PLANNING - - - - VOL3 BP18

PART n-MINUTES

29. Attendance by Reserve Members: RESOLVED: That the attendance of the following appointed Reserve Members be noted:

Ordinary Member Reserve Member

Councillor Mrs Kinnear Councillor Mrs; Asnton '-Councillor Mary Joim Councillor KnowlesCouncilor Redford Councillor O?Dell

30. Arrangement of Agenda: RESOLVED: That (I) all the items be discussed -with the press and public present;

(2) in accordance wife the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the following late item be submitted to the agenda for the reason indicated below:-

(1) Addendum: Report of the Chief Planning Officer relating to various items on the agenda and based on information received after its; despatch.

(Note: There were no public questions or petitions received at the meeting).

31. Minutes: RESOLVED: That (1) the minutes of the Special Meeting neld on 4 June 1998 be signed as a correct record;

(2) "the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 9 My 1998 be deferred until printed in the next Council bound volume.

32. Representations on Planning Applications: Upon being to a vote, it was,

RESOLVED: .That (1) representations; be received in accordance with the agreed procedures in respect of the applications for 18 Benfley Way, 15 Runnelfiel4 Prince Edward Playing; Fields and 203Station Road;

(2) representations be not allowed from the objector and applicant in respect of 7 Anselm Road as the request to speak did not comply with the agreed procedures^ as the application was being recommended by the Chief Planning Officer for refusal.

33. Deputations: RESOLVED: That a deputation be received in respect of the report on Representations on Planning AppEcations (see Recommendation MS).

34. Meetings in this Committee Cycle: RESOLVED: To note that meetings of the folowing; subsidiary bodies of Ibis Committee have taken place dming tMs Committee cycle:

(a) Planning Applications Sub-Committee (East) - 27 July 1998

(b) Planning Applications Sub-Committee: (West) - 3 September 1998

(c) Planning Applications Sub-Committee (East); -14 September 1998

(d) Planning Applications Sub-Committee (West> - 7 October 1998

(e) Unitary Development Plan and Review Panel -16 September 1998

35. Recommendations from Subsidiary Bodies:

(a) Planning Applications Sub-Committee (East) - 27 Judy 1998Recommendation 1 - East/191/98/FOOL -18 Benflev Wav, Stanmore

(See Recommendation H)

Recommendation 2 - EASTB02/98/MIL - 7 Canons Drive* Edgware

The Sub-Committee had recommended that the above application for a 1m and 1.8 metre fence to the part flank boundary to the front and rear gardens,, at: the above location, be granted.

Upon being put to a vote it was*


RESOLVED: That the recommendation be confirmed and the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives reported.

(Notes: Councillors Mrs Ashton, Mrs Bath, Howard, Knowles, Seymour and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of an amendment to refuse permission on the grounds that the proposal would harm the appearance of the Conservation Area, and also as having voted against the above decision).

(b) Planning Applications Sub-Committee (East) - 14 September 1998

Recommendation 1 - EAST/509/98/FUL - 35 Little Common, Stanmore

The Sub-Committee had recommended that the above application for a single and two storey side/rear extension and conversion of garage to habitable room at the above location be granted subject to conditions. Upon being put to a vote it was

RESOLVED: That the recommendation be confirmed and the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives reported.

(Note: Councillors Mrs Ashton, Mrs Bath, Howard, Knowles, Seymour and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of an amendment to refuse permission on the grounds that the scale of the proposed extensions would be to the detriment of the open character and appearance of this part of the Green Belt, and also as having voted against the above decision).

Recommendation 2 - 9/11 Canons Drive, Edgware - Unauthorised Boundary Fence between Nos. 9 and 11 Canons Drive

The Sub-Committee had recommended that enforcement action be taken in respect of the unauthorised erection of a boundary fence at the above location.

RESOLVED: That the recommendation be confirmed and enforcement action be authorised.

(c) Planning Applications Sub-Committee (West) - 7 October 1998

Recommendation 1 - WEST/318/98/CON - 7 Anselm Road, Pinner

The Sub-Committee at its meeting at its meeting on 7 October 1998 had recommended that the above application for the retention of a two storey side and single storey rear extension and dormer at the above property be refused and that enforcement action be authorised with regard to the front element of the two storey extension. The Chief Planning Officer advised Members further with details of how and when the applicant had been advised with regard to the breach of the 45° code.

Following debate and upon being put to a vote, it

RESOLVED: That the recommendation from Planning Applications Sub-Committee (West) on 7 October 1998 be confirmed and the application be REFUSED and enforcement action authorised.

(Note: Councillors Howard and Knowles wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of an amendment that the application should be granted and consequently that enforcement action not be taken, on the grounds of both the special circumstances pertaining to this case, as described by the Director of Social Services, and also that it would not be in public interest to require the extension to be demolished and rebuilt as it was not, in their opinion, a major breach of planning regulations.)

Recommendation 2 - WEST/379/98/FUL - 15 Runnelfield, Harrow

The Planning Applications (West) Sub-Committee had recommended that the above application for the reconstruction of a detached garage with pitched room to create a play room within the roof space and external alterations to the garage be granted subject to conditions and informatives.

Prior to considering the application, a representative of the objectors addressed the Sub- Committee and raised her concerns about mis application. No indication was given that the applicant wished to respond.

Following debate and upon being put to a vote it was

DEWLQPMENTANDTLANNING ' VOL3 DP 20

RESOLVED: That the recommendation of the Planning: Applications Sub-Committee (West) on 7 October 1998 be confirmed and the application be GRANTED subject to the conditionsand infonnatives reported.

(Note: Councillors Mrs Ashton, Mrs Bath, Howard,, Knowles,, Seymour and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted ia favour of an amendment to refuse permission on the grounds that the proposal would detract from, the amenity of this part of the Conservation Area and would also be unduly obtrusive and have an unacceptable impact on No.14 Runnelfield,, and .also as. having voted against the above decision.

(d) Unitary Development Plan and Review Panel -16 September 1998

Recommendation 1 - Revised Affordable Housing Policy

(See Recommendation T)

Recommendation 2 - Harrow UDP Policy Reviews

Recommendation 3 - Development Options for Ml Rosslvn Cresceni/24-34 Station Road. Harrow

Recommendation 4 - Reference of Strategically Important Planning Applications to LPAG

Recommendation 5 - Recovery of Costs of Pnblic Local Inquiries

RESOLVED: That recommendations 2-5 be received and confirmed subject to Recommendation 2 being amended by referring the following points back to the Panel for

- further consideration:

Change of Use of Shops: amending Policy S13 so that it: expressly excluded Bland, other specified uses.deleting the last sentence of para 5.52 of the reasoned justification (concerning, the application of policy SI 6 to Harrow on the Hill)

Conservation and Historic Buildings: deleting "normally" from policy E38(F)

Employment Policies: lie need for a strategic Part 1 policy concerning, theprotection of employment uses.

'(Note: In respect of Recommendation 3, Councillors Mrs Ashton, Mrs Bain, Howard,, Knowles;, Seymour and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted, in iavour of an amendment: to the proposed designation, of site such, that: it read "a mixed use incorporating: economic/employment uses and housing (preferably all affordable housing) and/or community use", and also as having voted against the decision of the Committee to confirm the recommendation).

36. - Deposited Plans: RESOLVED: That, the decisions, set out in abbreviated form, below be made pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990', the Planning, (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and, the Town and. Country Planning, General Regulations 1992, as:appropriate,, and the Director of Environmental Services be authorised to issue the appropriate decision notices.

(a) EAST/672/98/QHJT - Prince Edward Playing Fields. St David's Drive. Edgware - Offline: Football Stadiam. Terraces. Stand and Club House; Floodlights to Ground and Artificial Pitch. Parking Areas with Access from Camrose Avenue. Tennis Courts with Floodlights. Parlamg. Access from Whitdmrch Lane and Rear Service Road for 212/322 Camrose Avenue

Prior to discussing the application, a representative of the objectors addressed the Committee. He raised a number of concerns regarding: traffic congestion and, parking: problems in thevicinity which he considered would result: if the application were granted. JBe requested that the application be deferred for further consideration of these issues.

In response the applicant stated that the average attendance at home matches was between, 300 and 400 and they were not expecting thousands of supporters to attend home games. He emphasised the benefits of the proposal, to the wider community and, that: the club were .anxious to be good neighbours and to liaise and consult: with local residents.


During the course of debate a number of Members spoke in strong support of the application and the benefits that would result not just to the Club but to the wider community in terms of the increased sporting and recreational facilities. It was recognised that the proposal had caused some local concerns particularly with regard to the parking situation and the impact on the local road network but it was also pointed out that from the responses received there was a clear majority in support of the proposal.

A minority of the Committee expressed concerns about the proposed location of the car parking. It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred to seek amendments to consolidate the car parking to the south of the site, to seek additional heads to the proposed legal agreement to guarantee the open nature of the rest of the site and to exclude any further built development, and to provide some form of "bussing" arrangements on match days. Upon being put to a vote, this amendment was lost. An amendment to condition 19 to close the Whitchurch Lane access, a minimum of one hour after the kick off as well as one hour before was not agreed.

RESOLVED: That, subject to the Direction of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the applicants be informed that (1) the proposal is acceptable subject to the completion of a legal agreement within one year (or such period as the Council may determine) of the date of the Committee decision on this application relating to:

(i) Wealdstone FC to continue to manage, maintain and make available for use all other sports facilities on the site, together with the ancillary facilities within the Club House, for as long as they remain leaseholders of the site;

(ii) an agreement between Wealdstone FC and the Council in respect of the usage of the facilities by the Council;

(iii) the developer to cover the cost of design, consultation and implementation of parking controls, including a controlled parking zone to include residents' parking permits, in an area to be determined on the Whitchurch Lane side of the site, to be implemented at any time up to 10 years from commencement of the first use of the development, in response to demands from local residents up to a maximum cost of £60,000 (at 1998 prices) including fees;

(iv) the developer to cover the cost of design, consultation and implementation of parking controls, including a controlled parking zone to include residents' parking permits, in an area to be determined around the Camrose Avenue side of the site, to be implemented at any time up to 10 years from commencement of the first use of the development, hi response to demand from local residents, up to a maximum cost of £40,000 (at 1998 prices) including fees;

(v) the developer to provide rights of way and parking in perpetuity to residents over rear service road;

(vi) the developer to fund infrastructure improvements for pedestrians en route and adjacent to public transport facilities up to a maximum cost of £5,000 (at 1998 prices) to be constructed by the Council concurrently with the development.

(2) a formal decision notice, subject to the planning conditions and informatives set out in the officer report, and the following amended and additional conditions will be issued upon the completion by the applicant of the aforementioned legal agreement:

Condition 16: add "..... hi writing...." after "prior permission...."

Condition 18 amend to read: "The artificial pitch and tennis courts, hereby permitted, including floodlighting shall not be used after 22.00 hours, and the football stadium and floodlighting shall not be used after 22.30 hours without the.prior permission hi writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Condition 21 amend to read: "Details of all lighting to car parks, access roads, footpaths and buildings, to include proposed floodlighting to playing areas, shall be...."

34. "The number of persons accommodated in the football stadium at any one tune shall not exceed 3,000, without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development does not result in an over-intensive use of the site and to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents."

VOL3 BP22

(b) EAST/574798/EUL - Former Ibex Works, Ferndale Terrace. Harrow - Single and Two Storey Building to Provide Four General Industrial Units ("Class B2> with Parking and Servicing: RESOLVED: That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions andinformatives reported and the following amended and additional, conditions:

Delete Condition 17 and substitute with - Restricted, Use Class (Class B2) delete ".,... Class... of ...." -Reason (a) and (c).

Condition 20: delete " _, and thereafter maintained...." and add," _ and thereafter retained . ." after " _ local planning authority".

23. Noise and Odour/Fume from Plant and Machinery (amend to read: " .... neighbouring residential premises....")

24. Contaminated Land - Commencement of Works.

25. Contaminated Lane - Prevention of Pollution.

Delete Informative L

(c) EAST/716/98IWUL - 203 Station Road. Harrow -^Retention and ComBletion of Building to Provide Hotel with Parking:: Prior to discussing, tne application,, the Committee heard representations from an objector and the applicant's agent. The objector raised concerns about the parking provision and likely problems with vehicles entering and leaving, the site. Responding, the applicant's agent, referred to ihe feet that a residential use of the site for which permission already existed would require more parking spaces than me current proposal. He advised mat his client had been able to negotiate with, the Highways Department to allow a gap in the central reservation to allow construction traffic as well as ordinary traffic to turn right out of the site. Following debate it, was

RESOLVED: That permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informativesreported.

(d) WEST/572/98/FOL - Knoll House. Uxbridge Road. Hatch End - Redevelopment to Provide Part 2/Part 3 Storev Block with Accommodation in Roof for 19 x 2 and 3 Bed Flats with Access and Parking: RESOLVED: That permission be REFUSED for the reasons reported.

(e) EAST/557/98/FDL - Gemini House, 25/27 High Street Edgware - Rear Extension to Provide Temple: Change of Use of Part Ground Floor Of5ce as Ancfllarv

Conversion of Part Second Floor Ofiice to Self-Contained Flat:RESOLVED: That permission be REFUSED for the reasons reported.

(f) EAST/675/98/FUL - The Railway Hotel. Railway Approach, Station Road. Harrow - Change of Use: Public House to Cimarcn (Class A3 to Dl> with Ancillary Functions:RESOLVED: That permission^ be GRANTED subject, to the conditions and informatives reported and the following additional condition:

14. "Restrict Hours of Use (08.30 to 21.30 hours on any day)..."

(g) EAST/739/98/FPL - St George's Centre. St Ana's Road. Harrow - Change of Use of Part First Floor from Leisure to Retail and/or Food and Drink and/or Leisure (Class D2 to Class A1/A3/P2): RESOLVED: That, permission be GRANTED1 subject to fee conditions and informative reported.

(b) EAST/7Q4/98/LA3 - St Ana's Road. Harrow. Pedestrian Area - Outline: Alterations Works aiid Kiosks for Retail and Cafe Purposes in Associated with Upgraded Pedestrian Facilities: RESOLVED: That: permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative reported.

'(Note: A proposal, that the application be deferred to seek the removal, of the cafe area from, the application was, upon being put to a vote, not agreed.)

(f> EAST/640/98/FUL - Kiln Nurseries. Common Road. Stanmore - Demolition of Existing Buildings. Replacement Single Storev Garden Centre and Pet/Aqnatics Building, Landscaping. Car Parking:: RESOLVED: That the application be DEFERRED for aMembers' site visit.

37. EAST/296/98/FUL - Middlesex and Herts Country CM) and Land Rear of tbe Hare PnblicHouse - Old Redding: The above application, for the demolition of existing buildings and the


construction of single, two and four storey buildings to provide 32 flats with roof terrace, lower ground floor parking, gate house, residents' health club and landscaping had been deferred at the last meeting of the Committee for a Members' site visit which took place on 26 August 1998. A number of issues had been raised by Members at the site visit and further information had now been supplied by the applicant regarding views into the site, landscaping proposals and affordable housing.

On the issue of affordable housing, the applicant considered mat this site should not be considered as an appropriate one to pursue the affordable housing requirement Although the site area was more than 1.5 hectares, the development had been restricted in bulk and the numbers of units by other planning constraints, notably its location in the Green Belt. With regard to the question of a contribution being made towards off-site provision of affordable housing, the applicant had stated that the land value was underpinned by the existing club use and consequently there was little room to manoeuvre with the viability of the scheme.

The applicant had been requested to reconsider this on the basis that it had been this Committee's practice to apply the policies pertaining at the date of submission of the application rather than those adopted more recently. The calculated contribution based on 25% of the 95 habitable rooms, at a rate of £13,000 per habitable room, would be £308,750. The Chief Planning Officer reported that the applicants had offered a payment of £100,000 as a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing.

Upon being put to a vote it was,

RESOLVED: That the application be DEFERRED to seek the full contribution from the applicant, based on 25% of the 95 habitable rooms at a rate of £13,000 per habitable room, for the provision of affordable housing.

38. EAST/643/98/FUL - Wood Farm, Wood Lane, Stanmore; The Chief Planning Officer reported to Members that a planning application for the development of a cemetery and crematorium, and the provision of five houses at Wood Farm, Wood Lane, Stanmore, had been received. The report outlined the key issues relating to this application and Members' initial views were sought on the proposals. Officers were recommending that a Members' site visit be held prior to determining the application at January 1999 meeting of the Committee.

RESOLVED: That a Members' site visit be arranged prior to determining the application.

39. Planning Applications of Strategic Importance: Categories of Development on which the Proposed Mayor of London is to be consulted: Consultation Document: The Chief Planning Officer reported that the Government had issued a consultation paper on the definition of planning applications of strategic importance on which the Mayor of London would need to be consulted by the Boroughs. A response was sought by Friday 16 October.

The report from the Chief Planning Officer set out a suggested response which took account of the recommendation from the UDP & Review Panel that this Committee should agree to implement the voluntary guidelines for the reference of strategically important land use and transportation proposals to LPAC.

The consultation paper stated that it was intended to set clear and objective criteria to avoid any ambiguity about which proposals should be referred to the Mayor. The paper repeated the comments in the White Paper that arrangements would only involve between 100 and 300 applications each year from the whole of London. The consultation paper set out four broad groups of development proposals which might raise issues of strategic importance. These were: large-scale development, major infrastructure; development which might affect key strategic policies; and development which might affect key strategic sites. The officer report set out a suggested response to each of these areas. The following comments were made by the Committee: It was agreed to add to the beginning of the response the following paragraph:

"It is the Council's view that the requirement to consult the Mayor should broadly cover the same types of application as those where mere is currently a duty to consult LPAC, and that there should be no requirement to consult the Mayor on applications on which LPAC is not currently required to be consulted. The Council also believes that for the Mayor to have powers of direction separate from those of the Secretary of State risks major delay, confusion and paralysis; we consider that the Secretary of State should consider transferring his own powers of direction to the Mayor instead of creating concurrent powers of direction."

It was also agreed to add to the response on 3F:

DEVELOPMENT'AND'PLANNING ' VOL3 DP 24

"The expression 'does not accord-with the provisions of the development plan' is hopelessly vague and imprecise.. If this category is to be added to the matters, on which the Mayor is to be consulted, it should refer to departures from the Development Plan (le^ those required to1 be notified to the Secretary of State)."

The report concluded that the majority of the criteria set down in, the consultation paper represented a logical move forward from the current, guidelines for referring applications to LPAC. It was recognised that any suggestions to lower thresholds, for example, would have potential implications in terms of both the numbers of applications to be referred and the Mayor's ability to deal with, them, without causing farther delays to the process. Accordingly, the right balance needed to be reached in order to ensure mat the Mayor dealt: with those applications which were of priority importance in, strategic terms.

RESOLVED: That the suggested response to the consultation paper as; set out in paragraph 2.3 of the report subject to me above further comments, be agreed as the Council's response.

40.- Code of Practice: How Members and Officers Deal with Planning Applications: The Committee considered a joint report of the Chief Planning Officer and, the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to' theCouncil which proposed a draft code of practice to guide Members and, ofScers in the way they handled planning applications. A summary of the draft code was attached as; an Annex to the report and it was suggested that this be published, as, a guide to! members of the public.

The report examined the role and conduct of Councillors; and officers; in the planning process.. The report also addressed the following issues: planning; applications submitted by Councillors or officers of this Council and how they should be dealt with;, planning applications submitted by the Council itself; the lobbying process; pre-applcation discussions; public speaking at planning committees; decisions made which are contrary to an officer recommendation; Member site visits; and finally how complaints are dealt with.

Members agreed the following amendments: under paragraph 3.2 which referred to' arrangements, for dealing with applications from Members and officers it was agreed, that the proposed arrangements should apply to all Council officers whatever their department. It was also1 agreed, to' add to paragraph 4.1 that planning applications submitted by the Council would not be determined under delegated powers, m the 'draft code, under the role of officers it was; agreed, to add, a further bullet point - "detennming applications under powers delegated, to' them by Committee."

RESOLVED: That the proposed code of practice as set out in the report and annex,, subject to thechanges detailed above, be approved and adopted.

41. Audit Commission Development Control Study - Value for Money Indicators: The ChiefPlanning Officer reported that the District Auditor had recently completed, a study of development, control performance in Harrow, following up an, earlier study in 1991/92. This was; part of a national exercise undertaken by the Audit Commission.

Arising from the results of this study, the District Auditor had focused on four key issues for the Council's consideration. These were: the speed, of application processing and the faffing performance in this area, and in particular whether1 this; could be improved by increasing the delegation rate; the speed at which applications were registered and, decision notices sent out;, the potential to implement: more quality initiatives; and the level of appeals granted. Action to speed up the issuing of decision notices was already in hand. The development, control and building control processes were the .subject of a "Best Value" study now under way and al aspects of the process would be subjected to close scrutiny. The District Auditor had offered to assist: in aspects' of the "Best Value7' exercise and the extent and cost of their advice was being considered, currently.

RESOLVED: That (1) the contents, of the report and issues; identified by the District Auditor be noted;

(2) a further report on the scope for increasing delegation, be prepared for future consideration.,

42. RAF Jfortholt - Recent Proposals: The Committee received a joint report: of the Chief Planning Officer and the Chief Environmental Health Officer which reported, that: two' recent developments, had occurred which both proposed increased civil usage of BAR This had thrown doubt on earlier assurances mat the development of the airfield as, a satellite of Heathrow had been rejected by Central Government The report summarised recent developments.

RESOLVED: 'That (1) the contents; of the report: be noted;

(2) officers be instructed to reiterate; Harrow's opposition to the schemes mentioned, in the report as they would adversely affectthe amenities of Harrow residents, living; under the fEghtpath; and


(3) the invitation from the London Borough of Hillingdon to join in an awareness-raising touring exhibition concerning RAF Northolt be agreed hi principle subject to receiving further details when these are available.

43. 118 - 136 Greenford Road, Sudbiiry Hill, Harrow; The Committee considered a report of the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council which advised Members of a request by the proposed developer for an extension of time for completion of the legal agreement in relation to an application for 10 terraced and 4 semi-detached two storey houses with access and parking spaces and demolition of the existing house at the above site which had been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 5 February 1997. It was noted that as there had been no changes in material planning considerations since the application had been originally considered, the request was recommended favourably.

RESOLVED: That (1) an extension of time for completion of the agreement of one month be agreed; and

(2) it be noted that the making up and adoption of the internal access road within the site would be the subject of a separate agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 rather than being a term of the Section 106 Planing Agreement as had previously been intended.

44. Executive Action: RESOLVED: To note and insofar as may be necessary to confirm the following Executive Action which has been implemented following consultation with the Chairman and Nominated Members since the last meeting of the Committee:

(1) Asda, Wealdstone

(i) Informed the Secretary of State that the Council will not be submitting any further evidence in support of application EAST/640/97/FUL to the forthcoming public inquiry, and instructed officers to advise Asda of this position.

(ii) Advised Asda that the Council would be willing to discuss further with them alternatives which take account of the Council's fundamental observations about the scheme;

(ii) Planning Committee Members' Training Evening - Approved Duty

Sought approval retrospectively for attendance by Members at the Planning Committee training evening held on 15 July 1998 to qualify as an approved duty.

45. Standing Order 34(c): Councillor Scowen had given notice of the following motion which he wished the Committee to consider in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 34C.

"This Council believes that public houses and wine bars located in shopping centres where there are residential properties immediately adjacent to (often above) them often cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of those residential occupiers, and that the continued inclusion of such premises within Use Class A3 together with the way guidance is applied by the Planning Inspectorate makes it very difficult adequately to protect such amenity.

This Council therefore urges the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to amend the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 so as to exclude premises with a Justices'-on-licence from Use Class A3 and to strengthen PPG24 and other relevant Guidance to ensure that greater weight is given to the potential disturbance to neighbouring residential occupiers, particularly from noise generated outside the premises, in determining applications for public houses and wine bar uses.

RESOLVED: That the above motion be agreed and a letter be sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions accordingly.

46. Standing Order 30(z) - Termination of Meeting: RESOLVED: (1) At 10.00 pm to continue until 10.30pm;

(2) at 10.30 pm to continue until 10.45 pm.

(Note: The meeting closed at 10.50 pm).

(Signed) NAVIN SHAH

Chairman

DEWLQPMENTANDPlJUSaSOING ' ' VOL3DPPAW8

VOL.3

PLANNING APPLICATION SBOB-COMMFTTEE (WEST) 6 JULY 1998

Chakman: * Councilor Lawrence'•Zs

Councilors: * Gate * Noyce (part meeting only)* Howard * Scowen* MrsKmnear * Shall* Miles * Stephenson (5)* Lane

* Denotes Member present(5) Denotes category of Reserve Member

PART I - KECOMMENBATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 1 -Pinner Youth Centre (The Henry Jackson Centre). 5 CecH Park.Pinner

Your Sub-Committee considered a joint report of the Chief Planning Officer and the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council relating to the terms by which the Pinner Youth Centre would be used as a temporary First: School following the granting of planning permission for such a nse for a one year period, subject to a legal agreement; by the Sab-Committee at its meeting on 17 February 1998. The Harrow Jewish Day Trust, on behalf of the United Synagogue Trust Ltd had expressed concern with regard to the hours, of use included wimin the heads; of the legal agreement and felt that they had, not been consulted on the 15.00 aours each day closure time imposed on them by the Sub-Committee. The Trust felt that they would not have time to deliver the National Curriculum if the use ceased, at 15:.00' hours and had requested an extension of the approved school hours to 15.45.

Following a detailed discussion some Members, felt that an extension of the school, hoars should be granted m order to teach the National Curriculum, however, other Members felt that if permission was granted to extend the hours; it would conflict; with the existing finishing times at, Reddiford School and would result in increased traffic congestion in Cecil Park.

fa the course of ihe debate It was. moved and seconded that the school hours be extended, to 15.35. Upon being putto a vote Ms was not agreed. Upon being put: to a further vote it was:


That the cessation of the school use, as set out in the heads, of terms of the legal agreement remain at 15.001 hours each. day.

[Note: (1) Councilors Scowen, Howard, Mrs Kinnear and Lane wished to be recorded as. having voted against the above recommendation.

(2) This recommendation is submitted in accordance with a requisition under'Standing Order 43(a)].

PARTm-MINTJTES

15. Attendance by Reserve-Members: RESOLVED: To note the attendance at this meeting of'the following Reserve Members.

Member _ Reserve Member

Councillor Anne Whitehead Councillor Stephenson

DPPAW9 VOL.3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

16. Arrangement of Agenda; RESOLVED: That (1) in accordance with the local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the following late items be admitted to the agenda for the reason indicated below:-

(1) Addendum: Report of the Chief Planning Officer relating to the various items on the agenda and based on information received after its despatch.

(2) the following item be considered with the press and public excluded for the reason set out below:

Item Reason

Agenda Item 16 --Rear of 64,66,68 The report contained exempt information concerning Pinner Park Avenue, Harrow legal advice in connection with the determination of a

matter affecting the Authority (Paragraph 12b of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.) (as amended)

(Note: No public questions, petitions or deputations on planning applications were received from members of the public at the meeting).

17. Representations on Planning Applications: RESOLVED: That representations be received in accordance with the agreed procedures in respect of Item 2/07 on the plans list.

18. Minutes: Of the Planning Applications Sub-Committee (West) held on 9 June 1998 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

19. Deposited Plans; RESOLVED: That the decisions, set out in abbreviated form on the Plans Schedule be made pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, as appropriate, and the Director of Environmental Services be authorised to issue the appropriate decision notices.

20. Reddiford School, 38 Cecil Park, Pinner: The Sub-Committee considered a joint report of the Chief Planning Officer and the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council relating to Reddiford School. Following the last meeting of the Sub-Committee on 9 June 1998, the school had expressed further concerns relating to the hours of use as set out in the revised heads of terms of the Legal Agreement and had requested an extension to the school hours.

RESOLVED: That the proposed heads of terms of the Legal Agreement be amended to read as follows:-

(i) the restrictions of the number of teaching staff attending the school site at Cecil Park at any me time to 25, other than for staff meetings, non teaching staff to 8, and the number of pupils to 238;

(ii) the school roll for the Cecil Park site for the forthcoming academic year shall be made available for inspection at the beginning of the autumn term;

(iii) the Cecil Park premises of the school shall not be made available for use by parents or other groups for parties or other non-school functions including use by the Nursery School on the School's Marsh Road site and shall not be used outside normal school hours apart from the following: attendance by headmaster at any tune outside normal school hours; maintenance or administration work outside of normal school hours; the carrying out of school cleaning; staff meetings; Governors meetings (monthly); parent/teacher consultations (once a term), PTA Committee meetings (1 or 2 a month), school functions eg, Summer Fair and Christmas Fan- (one a term), without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Any school - related functions held on Saturdays be limited to between 11.00am and 17.00pm. No such functions to be held on Sundays. Normal school hours to be term time between 08.00am to 18.00pm.

21. Rear of 64, 66 and 68 Pinner Park Avenue, Harrow: The Sub-Committee considered a confidential report relating to the conduct of a Public Inquiry in respect of an appeal against refusal of planning permission at land to the rear of 64,66 and 68 Pinner Park Avenue, Harrow.

RESOLVED: That the applicant be invited to submit a further application for consideration.

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ' VOL.3 BJPAW10'

22. Executive Action: RESOLVED: That the Urgent Executive Action decision, relating, to enforcement action in respect of 45 Elm, Drive,, Norm Harrow after consultation with the relevant Members be noted.

23. Planning Appeals: The Sub-Committee received a report from the CMef Planning Officer detailing ihose appeals being dealt -with, and those awaiting decision.

(Nbte: The meeting closed at 9.08pm).

(Signed) ROBERT LAWRENCEChainnan


LIST NO. 1/01 APPLICATION NO: WEST/355/98/FUL

LOCATION: 146 Vaughan Road, Harrow

APPLICANT: John L Sims for Mr R Patel

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Retail to Food and Drink (Class Al to A3) with Shop Front, Ramped Entrance and Rear Extension.

DECISION: REFUSED for the reasons reported

LIST NO. 1/02 APPLICATION NO: WEST/3 83/98/FUL

LOCATION: 398 Northolt Road, South Harrow

APPLICANT: M Trogal Chartered Architect for Mr P McKenna

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Retail to Public House (Class Al to A3); On Ground Floor With Single Storey Rear Extension and New Snopfront.

DECISION: REFUSED for the reasons reported and the following additional reason:-

2. The proposed change of use would result in increased noise, disturbance and general activity to the detriment of the amenities of neighbouring residents.

LIST NO. 1/03 APPLICATION NO:

LOCATION: "The Grove", Harrow on the Hill

APPLICANT: P D Sharpies for Harrow School General Fund

PROPOSAL: Provision of 2.1m High Galvanised Security Fence.


WEST/162/98/FUL


LOCATION: 29 Pinner Green, Pinner

APPLICANT: Tiko Alalouff for S Patel

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Retail to Restaurant (Class Al to A3)


WEST/174/98/FUL

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

2/01 APPLICATION NO: WEST/23 8/98/FUL

4 Athol Gardens, Pinner

M G Humphrey for Mrs J Berry

Demolition of Existing Property and Replacement Two Storey Detached Dwelling.

REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.. The proposed chalet bungalow, being a largely two storey dwelling, would be damaging to the character and appearance of the street scene which consists of single storey bungalows.

2. By replacing a semi-detached dwelling with one which would be detached, the proposal would be damaging in the street scene and have an unbalancing effect on the appearance of no.6, the other in the pair of semi-detached properties___________________________________

DEVELOPMENT' AM) PLANNING VOL.3 BPPAW12

- 3. The introduction of accommodation at first floor level would be damaging to the .amenities of adjoining residential occupiers: given the level of overlooking: that would occur as a, consequence.

Informative: The applicant: is advised, that the Sub-Committee will look, sympathetically at: a proposal to replace the existing: dwelling with 'another bungalow occupying, a similar footprint and maintaining, the same braiding line.

[Note: The Sub-Committee also requested that officers investigate tie circumstances, surrounding the large roof extension at no-20 and, report: the findings back to the Sub-Committee in due course]

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

2/02 APPLICATION NO: WEST/51/98/FUL

Former Parcel School Site, Mount Park Road, Harrow on the Hill

John Browning Associates for Kingscastfe Lid.

-Conversion of Former School, Buildings Including the Gymnasium, and 2 Storey Side and Roof Extensions to "Oakhurst" and a. Front Dormer to "Ravensholf* to Provide 6 Houses with 4 Double Garages and Forecourt Parking.

DEFERRED and, subject: to no further objections being received in response to the 2nd consultation and advertisement, authorise the Chief Planning, Officer to>

GRANT permission subject to the following conditions and, informatives:

Delete Condition 4,, substitute:

"The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the car parking and turning areas have been submitted, to and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted drawings should indicate the provision of 4 car parking spaces within the existing forecourt, of Ravensholt,, and 7 spaces within the existing forecourt of Oakhurst."REASON: To ensure the provision of satisfactory parking areas, the appearance of the locality and in, the interests of highway safety.

Additional Conditions:

18. Highway Visibility 319. Detailed drawings of all new dormer windows shall, be agreed in writing by the Local Planning, Authority before the commencement of the development hereby permittedREASON: To safeguard Hie appearance of the building, and this part of the Conservation Area.20. Notwithstanding the details indicated on drawing number 306/01A, prior details of the siting of the garage accommodation to serve the unit within "Qakhorsf" shall, be submitted to and approved in writing: by the Local Planning, Aufiiority, priorto the commencement, of any works., REASON: To safeguard, the character'and appearance of the site.

21. Notwithstanding the details indicated on, drawing number 306/20, farther details of the proposed elevational treatment of the former gymnasium, building shall be submitted1 to1 and approved in, writing: by the Local Planning Authority priorto the commencement of any works.REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the building and this part of the Conservation Area.

22. Details of the future use and re-siting of the conservatory currently located at the rear of "Oakhursf',, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works. REASON: To safeguard the character and, appearance of the site.

faformatives: i) The appEcant is. advised that the re-location of the conservatory within the site will require the submission of a farther application for planning permission


ii) The applicant is advised that in seeking to discharge the requirements of Conditions 9 and 12, the Council would wish to see the provision of screen, planting, in the form of bushes and trees, on the boundaries of the gardens to houses 1 and 2 in "Oakhursf' with the garden to the former gymnasium building. Further similar planting would also be required within the garden of the former gymnasium building to screen this building from view.

[Note: Details to be submitted in relation to. additional Condition 21 (relating to the elevational treatment of the gymnasium building) shall be reported to the Sub-

_____________Committee for approval.]______________________._______

LIST NO. 2/03 APPLICATION NO: WEST/227/98/LA3

LOCATION: 72 Southfield Park, Harrow

APPLICANT: Head of Property and Construction for Director of Social Services.

PROPOSAL: Creation of Vehicular Access Points.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions reported and the following amended condition:-

Delete Condition 3, substitute:-

"Upon any change in the occupancy of the property, the highway and boundary treatment shall be reinstated in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed."


LOCATION: 241 Imperial Drive, North Harrow.

APPLICANT: Mr A Hajismaili

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Retail (Class Al) to Mini-Cab Office (Sui Generis) on Ground Floor.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions reported and the following amended condition and informative:-

Delete Condition 1, substitute:-

"The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued within 1 year from the date of this permission."

Informative: In granting temporary permission for 1 year, the Sub-Committee . were concerned particularly, about potential noise and disturbance

to neighbouring residents arising from 24 hour use of the premises, particularly at unsocial hours. In considering any future application for renewal of permission, the Sub-Committee will be mindful of any complaints or objections about this aspect of the use.

[Notes: (1) A proposal to limit the hours of operation from 7.00am to 1.00am was moved and seconded but, upon .being put to a vote, was lost; (2) Councillors Scowen, Howard, Mrs Kinnear and Lane wished to be recorded as having voted against the above decision.]

DEVELOPMENT ANBf PLANNING VOL3BPPAW14

LIST NO, 2/05 APPLICATION NO:: WEST/1lp/9'S/FUL

LOCATION: 32 Derwent Avenue, Pinner.

APPLICANT: Mr D Scott

PROPOSAL: Single Storey Rear Extension and Provision of Additional Floor, Featuring Front and Rear Dormers.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative reported-and the followingadditional condition:

3- Completed Development - Buildings

LIST NO. 2/06 APPLICATION NO: WEST/3I5/98/CNA

LOCATION: 1 Bradfield Road,, Ruislip

APPLICANT: London Borough of Hilhngdon.

PROPOSAL: Consultation: Change of Use of Warehouse to Car Body Repairs and Respraying (Class B8 to B2).

DECISION: Inform the London Borough of HQlingdon that NO1 OBJECTIONS be raised to the development as set out in application.

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:


Unit 9, Barters, Walk, High, Street, Pinner.

MVM Planning Ltd for Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd.

Change of Use: Retail to Food and Drink (Class Al to A3).

DEFERRED to clarify the nature of the proposal in, light of the letter Srorn Sainsbury's to their tenant on the opposite side of Barters Walk. (Referred to intention not to implement an A3 use, if granted,, but to use premises for A2 or Al use instead.)

[Note: Prior to' discussing the application,, the Sub-Committee heard a representation from a tenant of the applicant She made reference to the fact there were already enough A3 uses in the locality and, .also that she had received, a letter fern Sainsbury's which stated that they now wished to restrict: the actual usage and letting of the unit to Class. Al and, A2 whilst: she was. in occupation.]

LIST NO. 2/08. APPLICATION NO: WEST/98/98/FUL -

LOCATION: 12 Derwent Avenue, Pinner

APPLICANT: W H Sanders CES Associates1 for Mr and Mrs McGninness

PROPOSAL: Provision of Additional Fioor.

DECISION:: GRANTED subject to the conditions, and informative reported.

[Notes: (1) A proposal to refuse the application was moved and seconded but, upon being put to the vote,, was lost;,(2) Councilors, Scowen, Howard, Mrs Kinnear and Lane wished to be recorded .as having voted against the above decision.]

DPPAW 15 VOL.3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

LIST NO. 2/09 APPLICATION NO: WES1T161/98/FUL

LOCATION: 5 High Street, Harrow on the Hill.

APPLICANT: P D Sharpies for Keepers & Governors of Harrow.

PROPOSAL: Paving, Partial Realignment and Extension of Path and Provision of 1.8m High Screen Around Waste Bins.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative reported:

LIST NO. 2/10 APPLICATION NO: WEST/416/98/LBC

LOCATION: 34 & 34A High Street, Pinner.

APPLICANT: David Charles

PROPOSAL: Listed Building Consent: Externally Illuminated Fascia and Hanging Signs.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions reported.


LOCATION: 169 Greenford Road, Harrow

APPLICANT: Buttery & Watson for William Hill Organisation.

PROPOSAL: Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission LBH/1055/5 Dated 12 November 1976 to Allow Use as Licenced Betting Office, and Single Storey Rear Extension and Shop Front (Duplicate).

DECISION: DEFERRED for parking surveys to be carried out.

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

2/12 APPLICATION NO:

169 Greenford Road, Harrow

WEST/373/98/FUL

Buttery & Watson for William Hill Organisation Ltd

Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission LBH/1055/5 Dated 12 November 1976 to Allow Use as Licenced Betting Office, and Single Storey Rear Extension and Shop Front (Duplicate).

DEFERRED for parking surveys to be carried out.


LOCATION: The Henry Jackson Centre, 5 Cecil Park, Pinner

APPLICANT: Flinder Ashley Architects for Pinner Synagogue

PROPOSAL: Provision of External Staircase and Balustrade with Fire Escape Door at First Floor Level.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative reported.

DEVELOPMENT AND' PLANNING - - VOL3 DPPAW16

VOL.3

PLANNING APPLICATION STJK-COMMITTEE (WEST) 3 SEPTEMBER 1998

Chairman: * Councillor Lawrence

Councillors: * Dhaimarajah (1) * Lane* Howard * Scowen .* Ingram (4) * Miles* MrsKnmear * Shah

* Denotes Member present(1), (4) Denotes category of Reserve Member

PART I - RECOMMENDATIONS - NIL

PART n-MINUTES

24. Attendance bv Reserve Members: RESOLVED: To note: the attendance: at this meeting of the following Reserve Members.

Member Reserve Member

Councillor Gate Councilor Dhannarajah Councillor Anne WMtehead Councillor Ingrain

25. Arrangement of Agenda: RESOLVED: That (I) in accordance with the local Government (Access to. Information) Act 1985^ the following late items be admitted to the agenda for the reason indicated below:-

(1) Addendum: Report of the Chief Planning Officer relating, to the various: items, on the agenda, and based on information, received, after1 its despatch.

(2) the following Item be considered, with the press and public excluded for the reason set out: below:

Item- Reason

Agenda Item 16 -Lodgehill Park Close, The report contained, exempt information South Harrow-Enforcement concerning; legal advice in connection with the

determination, of a matter affecting the Authority (Paragraphs, 12b of Part I of Schedule 12A"to the Local Government Act 1972} (as amended).

26. Representations on Planning Applications: RESOLVED: That representations be received in accordance with the agreed procedures in respect of items 2/16 and 2/17 on the plans: list

27. Minnfes: RESOLVED: That ihe Mmntes of the Planning Applications Sub-Committee (West) held on 6 July 1998 be taken as read and signed as: a correct record.

28. Deposited Plans: RESOLVED: That the decisions, set out in abbreviated form on the Plans Schedule be made pursuant to the Town and. Country Planning Act 1,990, the Planning (Listed, Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Town and. Country Planning General Regulations 1992, as appropriate, and the Director of Environmental Services be authorised, to issue the appropriate decision notices.

29. WEST/140/98/CON - Red Lodge. South Hill Avenue. Harrow on the BOH: TheSail-Committee considered taking enforcement action, against the unauthorised construction, of a


garden shed and covered storage area within the rear garden of the above property. It was considered that the development by reason of its bulk and prominent siting within the open area of rear garden, was visually obtrusive and detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Accordingly it was

RESOLVED: That (1) the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council be authorised to:-

(a) Issue an Enforcement Notice pursuant to Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the removal of the garden shed, covered storage area and concrete base, the restoration of the area to its former condition and the removal of all the materials from the site. (Time for compliance - 3 months).

(b) Institute prosecution proceedings in the event of failure to:-

(i) supply the information required by the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council through the issue of Notices under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

and/or

(ii) comply with the Enforcement Notice.

30. The Orchard, Westfield Park, Hatch End; The Sub-Committee considered a joint report of the Chief Planning Officer and the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council updating Members on their previous decision to pursue Enforcement Action against a pea shingle forecourt and a steel container at the above property at its meeting on 4 September 1997. A successful appeal had been made against this decision. However, there still remained an outstanding enforcement action authorised by the Sub-Committee on 23 March 1998 following receipt of a revised application.

RESOLVED: That (1) it be noted that the Enforcement Notice in respect of the metal container has ceased to have effect following a successful appeal;

(2) it would be no longer expedient to pursue enforcement action against the previously unauthorised pea shingle forecourt.

31. Planning Appeals: The Sub-Committee received a report from the Chief Planning Officer detailing those appeals being dealt with and those awaiting decision.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

32. Executive Action: RESOLVED: To note and, insofar as may be necessary, to confirm the following action taken following consultation with the Chairman and Nominated Members since the last meeting of the Sub-Committee:

1. o/s 153 Northolt Road. South Harrow - BT Payphone - WEST/529/98/DTD

It was determined that prior approval of siting and external appearance of the proposed payphone was not required.

2. South Harrow Sports and Social Club, South Harrow - Replacement 15m High Slimline Lattice Mast - WEST/523/98/DTD

It was determined that prior approval of siting and external appearance of the proposed replacement mast was not required.

3 (a) Heathfield School. Beaulieu Drive, Pinner - Section 16 Agreement - WEST/666/97/FUL

DEVELOPMENT ANB PLANNING VOL3' DPPAW18

Members agreed an extension, of the lime limits for the removal of the 'Horsa Huts' located on the south western corner of the site from 2 to 5 years.

(o) Heathfield School Beaulieu Drive. Piimer - Section 106 Agreement -WEST/666/97/FDL

Members agreed ike substitution of drawings HEA/3, PO7, PO8 rev A, P10 rev B and PI I rev A for those previously considered acceptable by the Sob-Committee at its meeting on8 January 1998.

These .drawings contain the following revisions:

(i) removal of glazed link between existing and new building, loss of internal stairwayto be replaced wife external escape stairs;

(ii) changes ta internal, layout - especially ground and first floors; (iii) reduction miefgat of part of ancillary block and replacement with a flat roof; (iv) reduced Mgh level glazing on swimming, pool; (v) minor changes to window and door layout and other fenestration; (vi) steel outriggers to roof deleted - sight increase in height of eaves (main pool and

block).

4. 464-468 Alexandra Avenue - Telecommunications Equipment

It was determined that prior approval of the siting, and external appearance of the 5m high mast and equipment .cabin was. not: required.

33. Reference from Environment and Transport Committee - 25 June 1998 - Deputation Regarding Potential Development at the Rear of Pinner Road and The Gardens: The Sub- Committee received a reference from, the Environment and Transport Committee drawing to Members' attention that Committee's concern about: the ecological value of the site. Members: noted the reference and wished to place on record their continuing opposition to any development on this site. Accordingly, it was

RESOLVED: That a further letter be sent: to the owner of this site from the Chief Planning Officer restating the Council's opposition to the proposed development of this site.

34. LodgeMIi Park Close. South Harrow - Enforcement: The Sub-Committee considered a confidential report of me Chief Planning Officer relating to an Enforcement Notice in respect of non-compliance with regard to a landscaping condition, attached to' permission LBH731944/W and which detailed the circumstances that had led to the Chief Planning Officer recommending that there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution and that the Enforcement Notice should be withdrawn.

On the matter of the file that had gone missing, Members: expressed concerns about, this and the whole issue of security in the Civic Centre. A number of suggestions were made for improving security of files including the introduction of'a, tagging system similar to the one that operated in the libraries, a requirement to sign for files,, or the duplication of important files such, as. those relating to enforcement action.. The Chief Planning Officer outlined, the difficulties, faced1 by officers in trying to create a completely secure system whilst at the same time encouraging public access. He also pointed out that other departments: on occasions, required access to particular files. However he undertook to take on board the comments made by members and to submit both a progress report to the next meeting of the Development and Planning: Committee and a further report to the January 1999 meeting on implementing such, possible measures.


On the question of the payment to be made to the management company acting for the residents of the estate, following debate, it was agreed that a sum of £200 be offered, without prejudice, as a settlement. It was the view of officers that this was a reasonable offer. However, in the event that a request for a higher amount was received, it was agreed that a further report should be made to the Sub-Committee.

RESOLVED: That (1) The Sub-Committee make a payment of £200, without prejudice, for the improvement of the area;

(2) the existing Enforcement Notice relating to landscaping be withdrawn;

(3) a progress report on possible action to improve security for planning files be made to the next meeting of Development and Planning Committee with a further report to follow to the January 1999 meeting of the Committee.

(The meeting having commenced at 7.30 pm, finished at 9.58 pm)

(Signed) COUNCILLOR LAWRENCE Chairman

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING VOL3 DPPAW20


LOCATION: 286/290' Oxbridge Road, Baton End

APPLICANT: AMADesignforTheParisaGroup

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Al to Mixed A1/A3 Use (Retail to RetaiMFood and Drink) onGround Floor and Single Storey Conservatory Extension on Side.

DECISION: REFUSED for the reasons, reported.

LIST NO. 1/02 APPLICATION NO: WEST/140/9S/CON

LOCATION: Red Lodge. South Hill Avenue,, Harrow on the Hill

APPLICANT: MWLane

PROPOSAL: Retention of Garden, Shed and. Covered Storage Area.

DECISION: REFUSED1 for the reason reported. (See also Minute 29)

LIST NO1-

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

1/03 APPLICATION NO: WEST/318/98/CON

7 Anselm Road,, Pinner

Homes Plans for Mr J Moore

Retention of Two Storey Side and Single Storey Rear Extension and. Side Rear Dormer.

DEFERRED for Members" site visit

'(Notes: (1) la addition to the officer report an addendum report of the Director of Social Services was tabled, providing, supplementary information;

(2) Members expressed concern that the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) funding had apparently been initially agreed, for a single storey ground floor extension, tocreate a bathroom for which planning permission had not, been granted. Members: were anxious, that, procedures were put in place to ensure that such a situation did not occur again.. Accordingly,, it, was agreed, that this matter should be referred to the Management Sub-Committee (Housing; and Social Services)):,


LOCATION: 81 Evelyn Drive, Pinner

APPLICANT: AnmonyJElythandCoforMre; J Tainan -

PROPOSAL: Detached Single Storey Summer House

DECISION: REFUSED for the reasons, reported.

WEST/441/98/FUL



LOCATION: 81 Cuckoo Hill Road, Pinner

APPLICANT: Mr K S Virdee for Mr & Mrs Shah

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment to Provide Detached 3 Storey, 4 Bed House with Integral Garage

DECISION: REFUSED for the reasons reported subject to an amendment to the third line of reason 1 to read "... detrimental to the visual...".



APPLICANT: Nationwide Planning Ltd for Westcombe Homes

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Class Al to A3 (Retail to Hot Food Takeaway/Restaurant) on Ground Floor with Single Storey Rear Extensions, External Alterations at Rear and Extractor Duct.

DECISION: REFUSED for the reasons reported.

LIST NO. 1/07 . APPLICATION NO: WEST/451/98/OUT

LOCATION: Capthorne Court, Alexandra Avenue, Harrow

APPLICANT: Robin Bretherick Associates for Sunley London Ltd

PROPOSAL: Outline: 3 Storey Extension to Provide Three 2 Bedroom Flats with Access and Parking.


LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

1/08 APPLICATION NO: WEST/524/98/CNA

Kellogg Tower, Greenford Road, Greenford

London Borough of Baling

Consultation: Part Underground/Part Elevated Decking within Existing Car Park to Provide 143 Additional Spaces.

OBJECTION to the development for the reason set out in the report subject to the inclusion of the following informative:

Informative: Should the London Borough of Baling be minded to grant permission for this proposal, this should be subject to the applicant agreeing to provide either a significant element of public parking, or, more preferably, a significant contribution towards the cost of a CPZ in both Harrow and Baling.

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING VOL.3 BPPAW22

LIST NO'. 1/09 APPLICATION NO: WEST/454/98/OUT

LOCATION: Drake Court, Alexandra Avenue., Hairow

.APPLICANT: Robin Bretfaerick Associates for Sunley London Ltd

PROPOSAL: Outline: Detached Two Storey Building to' Provide 4 Flats: with Access andParking.


LIST NO. 2/01 APPLICATION NO: WESTJ375/98/FUL

LOCATION: 199 Marsh Road, Pinner

APPLICANT: Howard J Green for Lynch & Beckett Ltd

PROPOSAL: . Change of Use: Retail to Food and Drink (Class Al to Class A3)

DECISION: GRANTED subject, to the conditions, and informatives reported,

LIST NO. 2/02 APPLICATION NO:: WEST/398/98/FUL

LOCATION: 7 Bede Close,, Pinner

APPLICANT: MrMBroxham

PROPOSAL: Provision of Vehicular Access and Hardsurfacing to Provide Parking Area.,

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions: and informative reported,


LOCATION: Entrance to Chartwell Place, Middle Road, Hairow on the HOI

APPLICANT: Planning and. Development for Mr K Maidment

PROPOSAL: Provision of Automatic Entrance Gates for Vehicles and. Pedestrian Gate,, with Brick Piers and Close-Boarded Fencing.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions, and informative reported,


LOCATION: The Lodge, South View Road, Pinner

APPLICANT: B K Harailton-SmiBi

PROPOSAL: Resurfacing of Garage Driveway.

DECISION: GRANTED subject, to the conditions, and informative reported.

DPPAW 23. VOL.3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING


LOCATION: Rooks Heath High School, Eastcote Lane, South Harrow

APPLICANT: lan Scroggs - DSO Manager for Education Department

PROPOSAL: Provision of Fire Escape



LOCATION: 41 West Towers, Pinner

APPLICANT: Herts Building Design for Mrs A M Breakell

PROPOSAL: Extension to Outbuilding and Alterations to Roof


LIST NO. " 2/07 APPLICATION NO: WEST/150/98/LA3

LOCATION: 294-316 Alexandra Avenue, South Harrow

APPLICANT: lan Scroggs DSO Manager for Social Services and Housing

PROPOSAL: Enclosure of Front and Rear Balconies with Netting and the Fitting of Birdflite Wire to Window Cills and Horizontal Pipes.


(Note: Councillor Ingram declared an interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting that followed).


LOCATION: 105 Eastcote Road, Pinner

APPLICANT: MrAPatel

PROPOSAL: First Floor Side and Two Storey Rear Extension.

DECISION: DEFERRED at officers' request to enable further consideration of both the rearward projection of the proposed development and the issue of overlooking.

DEVELOPMENT AND1 PLANNING VOL.3 UPPAW24

LIST NO. 2/09 APPLICATION NO:; WEST/217/98/CON

LOCATION: RCT Sports Club, Headstone Lane, Pinner

APPLICANT; H Robinson for RaghuvansM Charitable Trust

PROPOSAL: Retention of Exercise track and Associated Rest Area.

DECISION: DEFERRED1 at officers' request to enable further investigation into the use of the_____________site and to reconsider the recommendation in the light of complaints. ______

LIST NO. 2/10' APPLICATION NO: WEST/468/98/LA3

LOCATION: Hatch End High School, Headstone Lane, Harrow

APPLICANT: lan Seraggs DSO Manager for Education Dept

PROPOSAL: Provision of 2 Enclosed! Fire Escape Stairs.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to fte conditions and informative reported.

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

WEST/397/98/FOL2/11 APPLICATION: NO:

1 Evelyn Drive, Pinner

Portland Conservatories for Mr M Bywater

Conservatory at Rear.

GRANTED subject to the conditions, and informative reported.

LIST NO. 2/12 APPLICATION NO:: 'WEST/470/98/FUL

LOCATION: Sander Nivas, 7 Park View Road, Pinner'

APPLICANT: JaneAFertaforMrJLakhani

PROPOSAL: Re-Surfacing of Driveway Including, tne Retention of Kerb-Edging.


LOCATION:- 5,6,7 and 8 Athena Close, Byron Hil Road, Harrow on the Hil

APPLICANT: PamelaMoody

PROPOSAL: Installation of Replacement Windows on Front Elevation.

DECISION: DEFERRED1 to seek either a joint application from the 4 named owners, or alternatively, individual applications from the owners of the 4 properties, and thewi&drawal of this application.


LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

2/14 APPLICATION NO: WEST/487/98/LBC

The Vaughan Library, High Street, Harrow on the Hill

Kenneth W Reed & Associates

Application to Discharge Conditions 14 (Details of Doors) and 15 (Raised Access Floor) of WEST/633/96/LBC Dates 23 July 97

GRANTED subject to the Direction of English Heritage.

(Notes: (1) Councillor Shah wished to be recorded as having abstained on the vote to discharge these conditions as he did not support the original decision to grant Listed Building Consent.

(2) Councillors Howard, Mrs Kinnear and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of the decision and as disagreeing with the views expressed by Councillor Shah).


LOCATION: ' 365 Northolt Road, South Harrow

APPLICANT: Mian Building Consultants Ltd for Mrs B A Khan

PROPOSAL: Single Storey Rear Extension and Front Porch (Revised)

DECISION: DEFERRED for Member site visit.


LOCATION: 64-68 Pinner Park Avenue, Harrow

APPLICANT: Eric Atherton for Kelly Homes

PROPOSAL: Pair of Two-Storey Semi-Detached Houses with Forecourt Parking Fronting Holmwood Close

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative reported and the following amended and additional conditions and informatives:

15. 3rd line amend to read (b) 600mm from the carriageway.20. Water-Disposal of Surface Water.21. Water - Disposal of Sewage.

Informatives2. Standard Informative 24 Environment Agency 1.3. Standard Informative 26 Environment Agency 3.4. The applicant is advised to consult the Council's Drainage Section with regard

to the means by which the disposal of sewage may best be achieved and implement the necessary measures before occupation of the property. The applicant is strongly advised to follow this informative or risk recourse from affected parties.

DEVELOPMENT' AM) PLANNING VOL.3 BPPAW26

(Notes: (I) Prior to discussing! this application, a representative of the- objectors; and the applicant addressed the Sub-Committee. The objector referred to condoning concerns about the drainage problems in Holmwood Close which would be exacerbated by this development. He also mentioned parking problems in Holmwood Close which would be made worse if permission was granted and he also considered that the development was out of character with the area. The applicant responded by referring; to the officer report, and the fact that the application complied, with al the relevant. Council policies.

During the course of the debate that followed, a number of members referred to the ongoing drainage problems being experienced by residents, of Holmwood Close. It was noted that any remedial, action to improve the situation would be the responsibility of Thames Water Utilities (TWU). Members were concerned to learn that the local residents had made numerous efforts over the last 10 years or so to persuade TWU to take action,, without success. Members gave assurances to the local residents that, they would use all avenues open to the Council to persuade TWU to take appropriate action. It was agreed that a letter should be seat to TWU, in the name of the Chief Executive asking what action TWU were proposing to take in respect of this matter. It was; agreed that the response together with a progress report should be made to the next meeting of the Development and Planning Committee and this whole matter should also be referred to the Environment and Transport, Committee which had overall, responsibility for drainage matters.

Notwithstanding the concerns; about the drainage problems, the majority of the Committee felt that, in the light of advice given, by officers in the confidential report to the last, meeting, there was no justifiable reason for refusing the application without a strong, possibility of costs being, incurred if an appeal, was pursued. A minority of Members felt that the application could be refused on traffic grounds as they considered that: if the proposal was implemented,, it would result in an, unacceptable exacerbation, of parking problems to the detriment of highway safety and the amenity of local residents.

Upon being put; to the vote, the proposal, to refuse permission was lost

(2) Councillors: Howard, Mrs Kinnear, Lane and Scowen wished to be recorded' as having voted against the decision to grant permission and, in favour of refusing; permission for the reason set out in fee above preamble.)

LEST NO. 2/17 APPLICATION NO: WESTB79/98/FUL

LOCATION: 15 RunaelSeld, Harrow

APPLICANT: Quorum Associates: Ltd for Mr NMeata .

PROPOSAL:, Reconstruction of Detached Garage with Pitched Roof'to Create Playroom Within Roofspace and External Alterations to Garage.

DECISION: 'DEFERRED' for Members" site visit

(Note: Prior to agreeing to defer this application for a site visit,, the Sub-Committee heard representations from a neighbouring objector who expressed concern about: the height of the proposed development, and, the impact it would have on her property which was less than 30' metres away. She considered that the proposal would be out of character with the surrounding area. No indication was given that the applicant was present and wished to respond).



LOCATION: Nower Hill High School, Pinner Road

APPLICANT: A Donetti for Nower Hill High School

PROPOSAL: Provision of 2.8M High Chain Link Fencing.



LOCATION: 127 Yeading Avenue, Harrow

APPLICANT: lan Scroggs for Mr & Mrs Cockram

PROPOSAL: Construction of Single Storey Rear Extension Over terrace'with External Staircase.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives reported.


LOCATION: 10 Albury Drive, Pinner

APPLICANT: Stark Associates for Mr & Mrs Hall

PROPOSAL: Single Storey Rear Extension (Revised).



LOCATION: 40 Marsworth Avenue, Pinner

APPLICANT: Mr V J McAndrew for Mr & Mrs D Weerasekera

PROPOSAL: Single Storey Side to Rear Extension and Laying Out of Patio.



LOCATION: 66 High Street (Ground and Basement), Harrow on the Hill

APPLICANT: Kenneth W Reed & Associates for Farlane Investments Ltd

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Retail to Residential (Class Al to C3) on Ground and Lower Floors, with External Alterations at Rear.


DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING VOL3 BPPAW2S

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

2/23 APPLICATION NO: WEST/57/98/HJL

Rayners Lane Service Station, Imperial Drive, Harrow B.P. Service Station

BP Oil "UK Ltd

Detached, Replacement Single Storey Sales Building and Car Wash, with Floodlights.,

GRANTED subject to the conditions, and informative reported and the following amended additional conditions:

2. Amend to1 read'shall..."

. (c) the treatment of the boundary walK The development

5. The floodlights, hereby permitted snail not be fllmninated until details of baffles to be installed on each individual light have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The baffles shall be installed in accordance with those details and retained in that form- Reason: To safeguard the amenities, of adjoining: residential, occupiers by minimising light spillage, glare and reflected glow from the site.

6. The car wash shall not be used outside the following times: a: 07.30 hours to 21.00 hours, Monday to Saturday inclusive;; b: 11.00 hoprsto 18.00 hours, Sundays and Bank Holidays, without the prior written permission of the local, planning authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities, of the adjoining residential, occupiers.

7. The petrol station, and shop shall not be used, outside the following times: a: 07.00 hours to 23.00 hours, Monday to Saturday inclusive; b: Q'8.00 hours to 23.00 hours, Sundays and Bank; Holidays, without the prior written permission of the local planning authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining residential1 occupiers.

8. Notwithstanding the details indicated on drawing no. 1327121 A, the brick wall indicated along the eastern boundary of the site shall be increased, in height: to 4 metres from a point 1 metre in front of the car1 wash extending, rearwards to the boundary with the ambulance station.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential1 occupiers from noise emanating from the car wash,

9. Notwithstanding the details on drawing No. 1327121A, the proposed single floodlight to the rear of the car wash bay adjacent to the boundary wall shall be replaced by a wall mounted light;, details, of which are to be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning, authority before installation. The light shall be installed, in, accordance with those details; and retained in that form.Reason: To safeguard the amenities, of adjoining, residential occupiers by minimising, light spillage, glare and reflected, glow from the site.



LOCATION: Unit 9, Barters Walk, High Street, Pinner

APPLICANT: MVM Planning Ltd for Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Retail to Food and Drink (Class Al to A3).

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives reported and the following additional conditions:

7. Refuse arrangements - Use (delete "b").

8. Restrict Storage to Buildings.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of- the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, the permission hereby granted shall not include use as a public house or wine bar. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.

(Notes: (1) An amendment was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds that it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of those residential properties on the south side of the High Street. Upon being put to a vote, this was lost;

(2) Councillors Howard, Mrs Kinnear and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted against the above decision and in favour of the proposal to refuse permission).


LOCATION: 5 & 6 Ingle Close, Pinner

APPLICANT: Village Homes (South East) Ltd for Village Homes (South East) Ltd

PROPOSAL: Construction of Two 2 Storey Detached Dwellings with Garages, Parking and Access with Retention of Garden Wall (Revised).


DEVEIX5PMEOT AND'PLANNING VOL3 DPPAW30

VOL.3

PLANNING APPLICATION SUB-COMMITTEE (WEST) 7 OCTOBER 1998

Chairman: * Councillor Lawrence

Councillors: * Dharmarajah (1) * Lane* Gate * Miles* Howard, * Scowen* MrsKinnear * Anne WMtehead



RECOMMENDATION 1 - WEST/318/98/CON - 7 Amselm Road., Pinner

Your Sub-Committee has given consideration to a planning; application for the retention of a two storey side and a single storey rear extension and dormer at Hie above property.. lie report also sought authority to take enforcement action with regard to the front element of tike two storey side extension-

Prior to discussing the report, fee Sub-Committee was addressed, by both the applicant's son and the objector's representative. The "applicant's son outlined the circumstances which had led to the development being carried out. He advised that a genuine mistake had been made and the intention in carrying out this work had been to provide the best possible care for the family member in need. He considered that the extension had been sympathetically designed ia relation to the existing house and he urged Members to look sympathetically at the application. In, response,, the objector's, representative confirmed that the main objection was to the breach of the 45°' code in relation to No 5 Anselm Road. The result of this breach was that sunlight was obscured from entering the front of the objector's property. He also referred to concerns aboutthe development: to the rear of No 7 Ansehn, Road.

The majority of the Sub-Committee,, whilst being sympathetic to the applicant's situation, considered that, as the.front wall of the two storey side extension breached the 45° code,, enforcement action should be authorised. Were the Sab-Committee not to take this, course of action, it was argued that ibis would set a dangerous precedent It was also pointed out that the applicant had been advised by officers during the course of the construction works, that planning permission would, be required, and that, potentially, enforcement action could be taken against the work under construction.

With regard to the use of Hie storage building at: the rear of the site, officers, were asked to investigate whether any commercial activity was; taking place and to report back on this;. Upon being, put: to a vote, it was agreed that the application, be refused and enforcement action be taken. Itwas. considered that the front element of the two storey side extension, by reason of its siting, bulk, overbearing impact and consequent loss of light was detrimental, to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers and had a detrimental impact in lie street scene and therefore enforcement: action should be authorised.


That (1) the application be REFUSED1 for the following reason:

The front element of the two storey side extension, by virtue of its siting, bulk, overbearing impact and consequent loss of light, is detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers, and has a detrimental impact in the streetscene;

(2) the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council be authorised, to::-

(a) Issue an Enforcement Notice pursuant to Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act: 1990 requiring the reduction of the forward projection of lie two storey side extension by 0.23 in. (Time for compliance - 6 months)

(b) Institute prosecution proceedings in the event of'failure to>

(i) supply the information required by the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council! through the issue of Notices: under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

and/or

(S) comply with the Enforcement Notice.


(Notes: (1) This recommendation is submitted in accordance with a requisition under Standing Order 43(a);

(2) Councillor Howard wished to be recorded as having voted against the above recommendation).

RECOMMENDATION 2 - WEST/379/98/FUL -15 Runnelfield, Harrow

Your Sub-Committee considered an application for the reconstruction of a detached garage with pitched roof to create a playroom within the roofspace and external alterations to the garage. Prior to discussing the application a representative of the objectors addressed the Sub-Committee. She raised concerns about the height of the building which she considered would result in overlooking of her own property together with a loss of privacy. The applicant, who was present, indicated that he did not wish to address the Sub-Committee.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal would detract from the amenity of this part of the Conservation Area, as viewed from "Helmsley" and would also be unduly obtrusive and have an unacceptable impact on No 14 Runnelfield. The majority of the Sub-Committee did not support this proposal and considered there were no grounds for refusing the application. Upon being put to a vote, it was:

Resolved to RECOMMEND;

That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives reported and the following amended conditions:

4. amend to refer to plan no 9608/G/01B

5. amend to read "The velux windows in the roof of the proposed development..." Delete (b).

(Notes: (i) This recommendation is submitted in accordance with a requisition under Standing Order 43(a);

(ii) Councillors Howard, Mrs Kinnear and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted against the above recommendation and in favour of refusing the application).

PART II - MINUTES

35. Attendance by Reserve Members: RESOLVED: To note the attendance at this meeting of the following Reserve Member:


Councillor Shah Councillor Dharmarajah

36. Arrangement of Agenda: RESOLVED: That (1) in accordance with the local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the following late item be admitted to the agenda for the reason indicated below:-

(i) Addendum: Report of the Chief Planning Officer relating to the various items on the agenda and based on information received after its despatch.

(Note: There were no public questions, petitions or deputations received from Members of the public at the meeting).

37. Minutes: RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 1998 be signed as a correct record.

38. Deputy Area Planning Officer: Members welcomed Tim Wood, Deputy Area Planning Officer to his first meeting of the Sub-Committee.

39.

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ' ' VQL-3 BPPAW32

Representations OB-Planning AppEcations: RESOLVED: That (1) representations on planning applications be received in accordance with agreed, procedures in respect of item 2/01 on the plans list;

(2) in respect of item 1/01 (7 Aaselm Road);, notwithstanding the feet, that -fee application was recommended for refusal, the applicant and the objector be allowed tomake representations at: this meeting in view of the particular circumstances pertaining.

40. Deposited Plans: RESOLVED: That the decisions set out in abbreviated farm on the plans schedule be made pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Town and Country Plaaning; (General) Regulations 1992, asappropriate, and the Director of Environmental Services be authorised to issue the appropriate decision notices.

41. Planning Appeals: The Sub-Committee received a report from the Chief Planning, Officer detailing, those appeals being dealt with and those awaiting decision.


(The meeting, having commenced at 7.30 pm, finished at 8.44 pm.)

(Signed) R LAWRENCE


LIST NO. 1/01 APPLICATION NO: WEST/318/98/CON

LOCATION: 7 Anselm Road, Pinner

APPLICANT: Home Plans for Mr J Moore

PROPOSAL: Retention of Two Storey Side and Single Storey Rear Extension and Rear Dormer.

DECISION: See Recommendation 1


LOCATION: Woodridings Yard, Hatch End

APPLICANT: D Silverman for Kol Chai

PROPOSAL: Single Storey Side and Two Storey Rear Extensions to Synagogue.

DECISION: REFUSED for the reasons reported subject to the following amendments:

2nd reason for refusal: 2nd line delete "... be insufficient..." and substitute with "...not meet...".

3rd reason add "... by virtue of the noise and disturbance generated by the additional traffic to the site."



APPLICANT: Buttery & Watson for William Hill Organisation

PROPOSAL: Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission LBH/1055/5 dated 12 November 1976 to Allow Use as Licensed Betting Office, and Single Storey Rear Extension and Shop Front (Duplicate).

DECISION: WITHDRAWN by applicant.

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

1/04 APPLICATION NO:

169 Greenford Road, Harrow

WEST/373/98/FUL

Buttery & Watson for William Hill Organisation Ltd

Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission LBH/1055/5 Dated 12 November 1976 to Allow Use as Licensed Betting Office, and Single Storey Rear Extension and Shop Front (Duplicate).

Appeal WITHDRAWN by applicant.

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:


455 Alexandra Avenue, South Harrow

White Associates

Change of Use: Class Al to C3 (Retail to Residential) to Provide 1 Bed Flat.

REFUSED for the following reason:

"The proposed change of use, by virtue of the location of the site and its relationship with adjoining commercial uses and the service road, would provide an unacceptably poor level of residential amenity for future occupiers of the flat and would prejudice the satisfactory use of the commercial part of the premises."

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING VOJL3 BPPAW34

LIST NO. 2/01 APPLICATION NO: WEST/379/98/FOL

LOCATION: 15 Runnelfield, Harrow

APPLICANT: Qjioram Associates Ltd for Mr NMehta

PROPOSAL: Reconstruction of Detached Garage -with. Pitched, Roof to Create: Playroom Within Roofspace, and External Alterations to Garage.

DECISION: See Recommendation 2.

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

WEST/484/98/FUL2/02 APPLICATION NO:

'Ebberston*,, 39 South Hfll Avenue, Harrow

Kenneth W Reed & Associates for Mr and, Mrs. 3 Snowdon,

First Floor Rear Extension.

GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative reported.

LIST NO:

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:


365 Norfholt Road, South Harrow

Mian. Building Consultants Ltd for Mrs B A Khan,

Single Storey Rear Extension, and Front Porch, (Revised).

GRANTED subject to the conditions and infonnatives reported and the following additional informative:

3. "The. applicant is reminded, that the development hereby permitted should only be used, in connection with the use of the property as a single family dweEinghouse, and should not be used for commercial purposes".

.(Note: The Sub-Committee wished it to be recorded thai;, although, the proposal fid not comply in all respects; with the requirements, of Council standards as. the remaining rear garden, was less than 15m, in, depth, permission had been granted in this particular instance due to the feet mat a similar scheme with, the same depth had been granted permission in November 1992).

LIST NO. 2/04 APPLICATION NO: "WESTY809/97/FUL

LOCATION: 91 Lackers Drive, Harrow

APPLICANT: Mr JDerodraforMrsRVPatel

PROPOSAL: Replacement Detached Part Single, Part Two Storey 5 Bedroom House wife Basement and Integral Double Garage.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions and infonnatives. reported and the following additional informatives:

4. The applicant is advised that in seeking to discharge the requirements; of condition 12, approval will not be forthcoming for the use of green roof tilesu

5. The applicant is advised that given the size of the development hereby permitted, permission is: not likely to be forthcoming for any extensions, to misproperty.


LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:


100 Albury Drive, Pinner

Dr Amol Kelshiker

Two Storey Side Extension (Revised).

GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives reported.

(Notes: (1) A proposal that the application be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site due to inadequate rear garden depth and that it would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of 94 Evelyn Drive, was moved and seconded, but upon being put to a vote, was lost;

(2) Councillors Howard, Mrs Kinnear and Scowen wished to be recorded as having voted in favour of the proposal to refuse permission and against the above decision;

(3) Councillor Anne Whitehead declared a non pecuniary interest which was neither clear nor substantial and she remained and voted on this application).

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:


"Sunridge", South Hill Avenue

David R Yeaman & Associates for Mr I Bisci

Single Storey Side and Rear Extensions to Provide Attached Garage and Bay Window.

DEFERRED to seek amendments to the scheme so that the side extension would have a flat roof similar in design to that on the eastern side of "Helmsley" adjoining the site to the east, and also to secure details of ground surfacing at the front of the property.

(Note: In deferring this application, the Sub-Committee wished it to be recorded that the renovation work undertaken at "Helmsley" had made a significant contribution to the Conservation Area. Members made particular reference to the gravel surfacing that had been laid in the front entrance of "Helmsley" and it was noted that if a similar surface was used with regard to this application, this would enhance the Conservation Area).


LOCATION: 105 Eastcote Road, Pinner

APPLICANT: MrAPatel

PROPOSAL: First Floor Side and Part Single, Part Two Storey Rear Extension.

DECISION: DEFERRED at officer's request to give further consideration to the relationship with the adjoining property.

LIST NO. 2/08 APPLICATION NO: WEST/588/98/VAR

LOCATION: St. Peter's Medical Centre, Colbeck Road, Harrow

APPLICANT: St. Peters Medical Centre

PROPOSAL: Variation of Condition 4 of Planning Permission WEST/456/95/FUL to Allow a Maximum of 6 Practitioners to Consult at Any One Time.

DECISION: GRANTED variation subject to the condition reported.

(Note: Councillors Gate, Mrs Kinnear and Scowen all declared an interest in this _____________item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting that followed).

-DEVELOPMENT AND-PIANNING VOL. 3 DPPAE15

VOL.3

PLAMSMGAPPUCA13ONStIB-COMMIITEE(EAST) 27 JULY 1998

Chairman: * Councillor Frogley

Councillors: * Mrs Bath * Miss Lyne* Bluston * Seymour* Dighe * Shah* Mrs Kinnear (2) * Margaret Sims



Recommendation 1 - EAST/191/98/FBL -18 Benfley Wav. Stanmore

Your Sub-Committee has considered an application for a single storey rear,'two storey side/rear extension., alterations to- the roof "with front, side and rear dormers. Prior to discussing; the application, a, representative of the objectors addressed, the Sab-Committee. He stated, that the proposal would result in loss of privacy, loss of light and would be out of character wiffi, the street scene and requested that it be refused. The applicant: in response stated that the proposal had been substantially amended in order to satisfy the residents, concerns and that it would not have an impact on neighbouring properties. He considered the proposal, to be of an, appropriate size and design and requested the Sub-Committee to grant permission.

Following a detailed discussion, some Members felt that a site -visit; was necessary before a decision could be made and in the course of the debate it, was moved and seconded that, a. Members' site visit take place. Upon being put to a vote this was: not agreed. Upon being put to1 a, further vote it was


That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions' and informatives reported:

[Notes: (1) Councillor Mrs Bath declared a pecuniary interest in this: item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon;,

(2) Councillors Mrs Kinnear, Miss Lyne and, Seymour wished to be recorded as having voted agaiostlhe above recommendation;

(3) this Recommendation is submitted in accordance with a requisition under Standing Order 43(a)]..

EECQ'MMEMPATIQN 2 - EAST/302/98/FDL - 7 Canons Drive. Edgware

Your Sub-Committee las considered an application for a 1 metre and 1.8 metre fence to part: flank boundary to front and rear gardens of the above property. The Sub-Committee noted the contents of a letter that had been received from the Canons Park Estates. Association, in, which they mentioned that the proposal would adversely affect: the character of the area, and the unique wide vista between the properties would be lost They also felt that there was: a personal dispute between the neighbours and that a large planter on the boundary would solve the problem-

Some members felt that the Sub-Committee should give further consideration to the views of the 'Canons. Park Estates Association. la the course of the debate it was moved and, seconded that the application, be refused. Upon being put, to the vote this was not agreed. Upon, being put to a - further vote it was


Thatthe application be GRANTED subject to' the conditions; and informatives1 reported.

[Notes: (1) Councillor John Cowan,, who was back-benching for this application declared a non- pecoiriary interest in this item, lie remained and spoke;

(2) Councillors. Mrs Bath, Mrs. Kinnear, Miss Lyne and Seymour wished to. be recorded as having voted .against the above recommendation;

DPPAE 16 VOL. 3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

(3) this recommendation is submitted in accordance with a requisition under Standing Order 43(a);

(4) Officers requested to report back to next meeting on alleged unauthorised fence between nos. 9 and 11 Canons Drive.]

PART D - MINUTES

17. Attendance by Reserve Members; RESOLVED: To note the attendance of the following duly Reserve Member:


Councillor Scowen Councillors Mrs Kinnear

18. Arrangement of Agenda; RESOLVED: That (1) all the business be considered with the press and public present;

(2) in accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 the following late item be admitted to the Agenda for the reason indicated below:

Addendum: Report of the Chief Planning Officer relating to various items on the agenda and based on information received after its despatch.

(Note: There were no public questions, petitions or deputations received from members of the public at the meeting).

19. Minutes: RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 1998, having been circulated, be signed as a correct record.

20. Representations on Planning Applications; RESOLVED: That representations be received in accordance with agreed procedures in respect of item 2/17.

21. Deposited Plans: RESOLVED: That the decisions set out in abbreviated form on the Plans Schedule be made pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992, as appropriate, and the Director of Environmental Services be authorised to issue the appropriate decision notices.

22. EAST/232/98/FUL - Brickfield Cottage, 58 Clamp Hill, Stanmore; The .Sub-Committee considered an application for alterations and single and two storey side extensions with a new roof to the front dormer at the above property.

RESOLVED: That the applicant be informed that (1) the proposal is acceptable subject to the completion of a legal agreement within one year (or such period as the Council may determine) of the date of the Committee decision on this application, requiring that the applicant agrees not to implement permission EAST/757/97/FUL granted on 14 November 1997 and further agrees not to make any claim for any kind of compensation in respect of the non-implementation of the said permission;

(2) a formal decision notice subject to the planning conditions and informative reported will be issued only upon the completion of the aforementioned legal agreement.

23. Orchard Court, Stonegrove, Edgware - Breaches of Conditions; Planning Application EAST/47/95/FUL for the construction of a five storey extension to provide five one-bedroomed flats adjacent to Block C at the above site had been granted on appeal in February 1996. Conditions had been imposed by the Planning Inspector in granting this permission which related to car parking provision and landscaping and consideration was given by the Sub-Committee to a joint report of the Chief Planning Officer and the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council which reported on the failure of the applicant to comply with these conditions.

Specifically, there had been failure to submit detailed amended proposals for the drainage, surfacing and marking of the 63 approved parking spaces (Drawing No. 314/17/D) and also failure to provide such parking facilities-prior to the first occupation of the flats, all in breach of condition 2. Secondly, the development had commenced without the approval of the Local Planning Authority being obtained for a scheme of proposed landscaping, to include a survey of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land together with details of those to be retained. This was in breach of condition 4. There had also been a failure to provide landscaping, in accordance with an

DEVELOPMENT Al® PLANNING VOL. 3 DPPAE17

approved scheme, in fee first planting, and seeding seasons following the occupation of any of tike flats permitted by the planning permission granted on 28 February 1996. Tins -was. in breach ofcondition 5.

It was. considered that the absence of satisfactory car parking facilities: harmed the amenity of the complex of the flats and the failure to provide satisfactory landscaping was damaging to the appearance of the complex of flats: and harmed the character and appearance of'the site and itssnuonndingS-

KESOLVED: That me Borough Secretary and Solicitorto the Cornea be authorised to:

(a) Issue Breach of Condition Notices pursuant to Section 187(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,requiring:

(i) the submission of a detailed parking scheme drawing,, showing not less than, 63 parking spaces, together wife details of paviour materials to "be used for their surfacing and stipulating how they would be drained and marked (the latter by varying the paviour pattern) (time for compliance - one month).

(11) the implementation of detailed proposals for surfacing, drainage, and marking out of parking bays^ the layout of which was approved on 16 My 1996 as shown on Drawing 314/17/D in accordance with the details-required by (i) above and thereafter to retain these facilities for the parking and, manoeuvring of vehicles (time for compliance - two months).

(iii) the submission of a detailed landscaping scheme wMch stipulates the following: the precise location of the proposed plants; the proposed plant species; the quantities1 of plants proposed (time for compliance - one month);

(iv) the implementation of -fee landscaping scheme (time for compliance - wimin the first . planting and seeding seasons following approval in writing by the Local, Planning,

Authority).

(b) Institute legal proceedings in the event of failure to:

(i) supply the information required, by the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council through the issue of Notices under Section 33G1 of the Town and. Country Planning Act 1990;

and/or

(if) comply wifh the Breach of Condition Notices.

fNote: Councillor Mrs Kinnear declared a pecuniary interest in this item, left the room and tookno part in the 'discussion or voting; thereon].

24. 43 Radcliffe Road. Keaton: The Sub-Committee considered a joint report from the Chief Planning Officer and the Borough, Secretary and Solicitor to fee Council which concerned fee accumulation in the front and rear1 gardens to the above dwelling house of bicycles, and cycle parts and other redundant items affecting the amenity of the neighbourhood The officer1 report set out fee background to this particular property and also fee history of officer1 inspections: feat had taken place. It was noted mat Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning, Act 1990 provided a power to the Local Planning Authority to require proper maintenance of land (which includes braidings) if it appeared feat the amenity of part: of their area, was adversely affected. It was. the view of officers that, in this particular instance, fee amenity of part: of the area sunoundiag this property was adversely affected by the condition of land, including fee buildings. Accordingly it was:

BESQIrVED: That the Borough Secretary and, Solicitorto fee Council be authoris_edto (a) issue a Notice pursuant to Section 215 of lie Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring:

(i) the removal from the property of all bicycles, cycle parts, tyres, black plastic sacks,domestic and garden rubbish, paper, plastic pipes, plastic and metal guttering, plastic bottles, plastic sheets, corrugated plastic sheeting, barbed, wire, metal angle, metal parts and poles, slotted metal lengths and plastic and metal collapsed lean-to structure (time for compliance - 28 days);


(ii) the trimming of all vegetation other than established trees to ground level and the removal of trimmings from the property (time for compliance - 28 days);

(iii) The replacement or refurbishment of the first floor rear window and frame and the refurbishment of the rear French doors (time for compliance 56 days);

(iv) The re-fencing of the northern boundary of the rear garden by rebuilding or replacing the close boarding to a height of 1.2m (time for compliance - 56 days);

(b) instigate legal proceedings in the event of failure to:

(i) supply information required by the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council through the issue of Notices pursuant to Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

and/or

(ii) comply with the Section 215 Notice.

25. 129 London Road, Stanmore: The Sub-Committee considered a joint report of the Chief Planning Officer and the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council which concerned the unauthorised use of the above detached dwelling house in part for the teaching of the game of Bridge and the holding of sessions of games open to the public. It was considered that the unauthorised mixed use of this property was detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring properties by reason of noise, activity and associated parking. Accordingly, it was

RESOLVED: That the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council be authorised to (a) issue Enforcement Notices pursuant to Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the cessation of the use of the property for the commercial tuition of the game of Bridge and also to cease operation of sessions of that game for persons not resident thereat (time for compliance - two weeks);

(b) institute legal proceedings in the event of failure to:

(i) supply information required by the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council through the issues of Notices under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

and/or

(ii) comply with the Enforcement Notices.

26. The Grove and Stanmore Common, Stanmore (EAST/774/96/FUL); The Development and Planning Committee at its meeting of 5 February 1997 had granted planning permission for the excavation and construction of a sewer supply duct and inspection chamber at the above site subject to the completion of a legal agreement. This legal agreement was due to be completed within one year of 5 February 1997. It was reported that this agreement had now been agreed in principle and the applicants were anxious to commence the works and had requested that this matter proceed to a speedy conclusion. Accordingly it was

RESOLVED: That the period for completion of the legal agreement required in relation to planning application EAST/774/96/FUL be extended for a further period of 3 months.

27. Planning Appeals; Members received a report from the Chief Planning Officer detailing both the appeals being dealt with and those awaiting decision.


28. Executive Action; RESOLVED: To note and insofar as may be necessary to confirm the following executive action implemented following consultation with the Chairman and Nominated Members since the last meeting of the Sub-Committee:

1. EAST/220/98/FUL - 41 Enderley Road, Harrow Weald

DEVELOPMEIOTANDPLAIWING VOL.3 DPPAE19

Amended me bead of terms of the Section 106 Agreement: relating to Planning Application EAST/220/98/FUL to alow the increase in total patient list size from 12,800 to 13,000.

{Note: He meeting closed at 9.01 pm.)

(Signed) RFRQGLEY

DPPAE20 VOL.3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

LIST NO. 1/01 APPLICATION NO: EAST/367/98/FUL

LOCATION: 51 West Drive, Harrow Weald

APPLICANT: The Drawing Room for Lowerland

PROPOSAL: Demolition of Existing House and Construction of Detached House with Internal Garage.


LIST NO. 1/02 APPLICATION NO: EAST/368/98/CAC

LOCATION: 51 West Drive, Harrow Weald

APPLICANT: The Drawing Room for Lowerland Ltd

PROPOSAL: Conservation Area Consent Demolition of Existing House.


LIST NO. 1/03 APPLICATION NO: EAST/529/98/CNA

LOCATION: Kingsbury Community Hospital, Honeypot Lane, Kingsbury.

APPLICANT: Brent Council

PROPOSAL: Consultation: Outline - Redevelopment for Health Care Facilities, Residential Development, New Access to Honeypot Lane, Alterations to Rose Bates Drive.

DECISION: RAISED OBJECTIONS to the development.


LOCATION: 267 Station Road, Harrow

APPLICANT: MrNBhatia

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Retail to Tea/Coffee Sandwich Bar (Class Al to A3).

DECISION: REFUSED for the reasons reported.[Note: Councillor Miss Lyne wished to be recorded as having voted against the above decision]


LOCATION: 161 Burnt Oak Broadway, Edgware

APPLICANT: Mr Y M Levin for Paul C Bennis & Co.

PROPOSAL: . Change of Use: Retail to Financial and Professional Services (Class Al to Class A2).


DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING VOL.3 DPPAE21

LIST NO. 1/06 APPLICATION NO: - EAST/315/98/FUL

LOCATION: 29 Kenton, Park Parade, Kenton Road, Kenton.

APPLICANT: Buttery & Watson for Wiffiam Hill Organisation Ltd

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Retail to Betting Office (Class Al to A2) with Single Storey Rear Extension and Shop Front Plus External Stairs and Railings at Rear.

DECISION: REFUSED forlhe reasons reported

LIST NO. 1/07 APPLICATION NO: EAST/3I6/98/FUL

LOCATION: 29 Kenton Park Parade, Kenton Road, Kenton

APPLICANT: Buttery & Watson for William Hill Organisation Ltd. .

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Retail to Betting Office (Class Al to A2) -with Single StoreyRear Extension and Shop Front Plus. External Stairs and Railings, at Rear (Duplicate).

DECISION: REFUSED1 for the reasons reported,

LIST NO. 1/08 APPLICATION NO: EAST/431/98/CNA

LOCATION: Essoldo Way, Turner Road, Edgyrare

APPLICANT: Brent Council

PROPOSAL: Consultation: Outline - Redevelopment to Provide 6x2 Storey Terraced Houses with Parking.

DECISION: RAISED OBJECTIONS to ihe development

LIST NO. 2/01 APPLICATION NO: EAST/396/98/VAR

LOCATION: 55 The Broadway,, Stanmore

APPLICANT: Cnnnane Town, Planning for Pizza Express Ltd,

PROPOSAL: Variation of Condition 3f of Planning, Permission EAST/585/94/FUL to Allow Hours of Use 10:30 - 23:30 Monday to Thursday, 10:30 - Midnight Friday and Saturday, 10:30 - 22:30' Sundays.

DECISION: GRANTED

LIST NO. 2/02 APPLICATION NO: EAST/346/9S/FOL

LOCATION: St Lawrence Church HaB, St Lawrence Close, Edgware

APPLICANT: J E O Screen for St Lawrence WMtchurch Council

PROPOSAL: Storage Container at. Rear of Hall.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to ihe condition reported.

DPPAE22 VOL.3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING


LOCATION: 103,105 and 107 Stanmore Hill, Stanmore

APPLICANT: PCKO Limited for J Kyriakides

PROPOSAL: Use of Outbuildings for Office/Studio (Class Bl(a)) with Alterations to Elevations, Formation of Courtyard and New Dormer.


LIST NO. 2/04 APPLICATION NO: EAST/501/98/REN

LOCATION: St Anselm's First and Middle School, Roxborough Park

APPLICANT: The Wilkinson Partnership for St Anselm's First and Middle School

PROPOSAL: Renewal of EAST/3 65/93/FUL: Replacement Retaining Wall, Surfacing of New Playground Area with Associated Landscaping.

DECISION: ' GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives reported.[Note: Councillor Mrs Kinnear declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item, and remained to take part in the debate and voting thereon].

LIST NO. 2/05 APPLICATION NO: EAST/502/98/CAC

LOCATION: St Anselm's First and Middle School, Roxborough Park

APPLICANT: The Wilson Partnership for St Anselm's First and Middle School.

PROPOSAL: Renewal of Conservation Area Consent WEST/366/93/CAC: Demolition of Retaining Walls.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives reported.[Note: Councillor Mrs Kinnear declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item, and remained to take part in the debate and the voting thereon].


LOCATION: 35 Little Common, Stanmore

APPLICANT: M W Easton for Paul Lewis

PROPOSAL: Single and Two Storey Side/Rear Extension and Conversion of .Garage to Habitable Room.

DECISION: DEFERRED for Members' site visit.


LOCATION: 35 Chestnut Avenue, Edgw.are

APPLICANT: K W Lannan Associates for Mr D MacDonald

PROPOSAL: Replacement Single Storey Side Extension.


DEVELOPMENT AND' PLANNING VOL. 3 BPPAE23

LIST NO. 2/08 APPLICATION NO: , EAST/416/98/FUL

LOCATION: Culver Bowls Club, Centenary Park

APPLICANT: Mr R Sprange for Culver Bowls Club

PROPOSAL: Replacement Bowls Pavilion.

DECISIQN; GRANTED1 subject to the conditions, and informatives reported,

LIST NO." 2/09 APPLICATION NO: EAST/437/98/FOL

LOCATION: Wealdstone Bowk Club, Byron Pads, Byron Road, Wealdstone

APPLICANT: Design 2000 for Wealdstone Bowing Club

PROPOSAL: Front and Side Extensions, to Pavilion.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions and Mormatives reported.

LIST NO. 2/10 APPLICATION NO: EAST/214798/ADV

LOCATION: Swaminarayan Temple, 107 Westfield Lane,, Kenton

APPLICANT: Draper Neal Associates for SKSS Temple

PROPOSAL: lUuminatedName Sign Above Front Entrance.

DECISION: GRANTED subject: to the conditions and Mormatives, reported.

LIST NO. 2/11 APPLICATION NO: BAST/308/98/FUL

LOCATION: 10B Oxford Road, Wealdstone

APPLICANT: KHandaforALBhiidia

PROPOSAL: Use as Car Repair Garage (Revised).

DECISION: (1) GRANTED subject to the conditions, reported, and the following additional condition and informative.

Additional Condition: 1. The area for vehicle manoeuvring shown on, theapproved, plan shal be kept, clear for that purpose at all times.REASON: To1 ensure satisfactory manoeuvring areas in the interest ofhighway safety.Additional, Condition 2. Before the use commences, a .sign, indicating theavailability of packing within the braiding shall be displayed at the entrance ofthe site.REASON: In the interest: of highway safety,Informative: The Local Planning. Authority consider that the presentunauthorised use of the premises should cease forthwith in the interests, ofhighway safety.,

(2) That Officers, be authorised to. report as. Executive Action to secure enforcement authority should use not cease withm, 1 month (maximum)-



LOCATION: Brickfield Cottage, 58 Clamp Hill, Stanmore

APPLICANT: M W Hasten for Mr B Leadman

PROPOSAL: Alterations and Single and Two Storey Side Extensions with -New Roof to Front Dormer.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to a Legal Agreement. (See Minute 22)


LOCATION: 215 Kenton Lane, Harrow

APPLICANT: Mr D A Cobb for Mr N J Pattni

PROPOSAL: Change of Use: Retail to Financial and Professional Services (Class Al to Class A2) with Fencing, Access and Parking.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to conditions and informatives reported.

LIST NO. 2/14 APPLICATION NO: EAST/488/98/LA3

LOCATION: 82 Gayton Road, Harrow

APPLICANT: lan Scroggs - DSO Manager for Education Department

PROPOSAL: External Fire Escape Stairs at Rear

DECISION: GRANTED subject to conditions and informative reported.

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

2/15 APPLICATION NO: EAST/484/98/VAR

Masters House, 4/5 Sandridge Close, Harrow.

Ferrari Dewe & Co for Masters International UK Ltd

Variation of Condition 8 of Planning Permission LBH/3851/3 Dated 20/11/72 to Allow Hours of Use from 06.00 to 20.00 Hours.

REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposed hours of working on the site would give rise to additional activity, noise and disturbance at unsocial hours and detract from the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties


LOCATION: 7 Canons Drive, Edgware

APPLICANT: H Varsani for Mr and Mrs Chow

PROPOSAL: 1 .Om and 1.8m Fence to Part Flank Boundary to Front and Rear Gardens.


DEVELOPMENT AND1 PLANNING VOL.3 DPPAE25

LIST NO. 2/17 APPLICATION NO: EAST/191/98/HJL

LOCATION: 18 Beatley Way,, Stanmore

APPLICANT: C!arkeKlem&,ChaudhurI for Mr and Mrs M Smith

PROPOSAL: Single Storey Rear, Two Storey Side/Rear Extension, Alterations, to Roof with Front,. Side and Rear Dormers.


LIST NO. 2/18 APPLICATION NO: EAST/3 85/98/FOL

LOCATION: He Hare: PJBL, BrookshiE, Harrow Weald

APPLICANT: Cransai31 Designs,

PROPOSAL: Single Storey Rear Extension (Revised)

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions reported

LIST NO. 2/19 APPLICATION NO: EAST/443/9S/LBC

LOCATION: The Hare PJEL, Brookshlll, Harrow Weald

APPLICANT: Cramnin Designs Ltd for Allied Domeqc Inn Ltd.

PROPOSAL: Listed Building Consent: Demolition of Outbuildings; Removal of Rear Extension & Lobby; New Single Storey Rear Extension.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions reported

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

EAST/424/98/FUL2/20 APPLICATION NO:

72 Lake View, Edgware

K C Peasland for Mr D V Shall

Rear Dormer Window aad Rear Conservatory

GRANTED subject to the conditions aad mformatives reported

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

EAST/516/98/LA32/21 APPLICATION NO:

183 Carmelite Road, Harrow Weald

Mr I Scroggs for London Borough of Harrow

Single and Two Storey Side Extension

GRANTED subject to the conditions and Mbrmatives, reported

LIST NO: 2/22 APPLICATION NO: EAST/521/98/FDL

LOCATION: R/O 72-76 Old, Church Lane, Stanmore

APPLICANT: Capener Cross Partnership for Topstar Properties Ltd

PROPOSAL: Two Storey Detached House with Access irom Belmont Lane

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions and irrformatives reported and the following additional condition:


Additional Condition: Surface water drainage works shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.

REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding.


LOCATION: 65-77 Welldon Crescent, Harrow

APPLICANT: Fuller Peiser for John Grooms Association

PROPOSAL: Demolition of Existing Houses, Three Storey Building with Basement to Provide 21 Bedroom Carehome with Parking.

DECISION: GRANTED: Subject to conditions and informatives reported.[Note: Councillor Seymour declared an interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.]



APPLICANT: P Tywman for Mr E Baron

PROPOSAL: Single Storey Rear Extension,



LOCATION: 5 Dukes Avenue, Edgware

APPLICANT: Marcel Blum for Mr and Mrs R Leigh

PROPOSAL: Alterations to Roof with Dormers at Side and Rear.

DECISION: DEFERRED for receipt of revised elevations to accord with plans.

LIST NO. 2/26 APPLICATION NO: EAST/3 50/98/FUL

LOCATION: Land Between 60 and 62 Roxborough Park, Harrow

APPLICANT: Mr V J McAndrew for Tony McFadden Ltd

PROPOSAL: Detached Two Storey House with Integral Garage

DECISION: GRANTED subject to conditions and informatives reported.

DEVELOPMENT AMD1 PLANNING VOL3 DPPAE 27

VOL.3

PLANNING APPLICATIONS SBOB-COMMfTTEE (EAST)' 14 SEPTEMBER 1998

Chairman: * Councillor Frogley

Councillors: * Mrs Bath * Mary John (1)* Bluston * Seymour* Dighe * Sliah* Mary-Graham, (1) * Margaret Sims



RECOMMENDATION 1: EAST/509/98/FDL - 35 Little Common. Stanmore

Your Subcommittee has considered an application for a single and two storey side/rear extension and conversion of garage to habitable room,, at ihe above location.


That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions and infonnatives reported and mefollowing additional condition:

4. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the proposed new planting have been submitted, to' and approved by the Local Planning Authority: such planting to be carried out prior to occupation of the development hereby approved Reason: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area,, and to enhance the appearance of the development

(Note: This Recommendation is: submitted in accordance "with a requisition under the provisions of Standing Order 43(b)).

RECOMMENDATION 2: 9/11 Canons Drive, Edgware - Unauthorised Boundary Fence between Nos. 9 & 11 Canons Drive

Your Sub-Committee considered a joint report of the Chief Planning Officer and the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council which sought authority to take enforcement action with regard, to the unauthorised erection of a, boundary fence without: planning permission., The report set out the background to the erection, of the fences which ran between Nos. 9 & 11 Canons. Drive and also along the flank of 3Sfo.ll abutting Chestnut Avenue. It was noted that planning permission was required for the fences because permitted development rights had been removed by an Article 4 Droction.

It was the view of officers that: these fences, other than the front section between Nos.'9 and 11, were acceptable and preserved the character of the area and, therefore it, was not recommended as expedient to pursue enforcement action against: these fences. However, wife, regard to the front, section of the fence,, this Sub-Committee had previously refused permission for a fence of 1.8m height between 7 & 9 Canons Drive in May 1997 on grounds of unsatisfactory size and appearance io. this Conservation Area.

Having considered the report, the recommendation of'the Sub-Committee was that, enforcement action should be taken against the unauthorised erection of the boundary fence on the grounds; that the front section of the fence, by reason of unsatisfactory size,, height, and appearance, would detract from the character and appearance of the street scene and, would not preserve or enhance this part of tiie Conservation Area-

fa, view of the feet mat this Sub-Committee at its last: meeting had, recommended granting an application for a 1 metre fence on this, boundary fronting; 7 Canons Drive and in order to ensure that the decisions in respect of both No. 7 and No. 9/11 Canons Drive are consistent,, this matter has been recommended to this Committee.,


That the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to' the Council be authorised to:

DPPAE28VOL.3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

(a) Issue an Enforcement Notice pursuant to Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the reduction in the height of the front 12 metre section offence to no higher than 1.0 metres from ground level. (Time for compliance - 3 months).

(b) Institute legal proceedings in the event of failure to>

(i) supply the information required by the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council through the issue of Notices under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

and/or

(ii) comply with the Enforcement Notices.

PART II-MINUTES

29. Attendance by Reserve Members; RESOLVED: To note the attendance of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:


Councillor Miss Lyne Councillor Mary Graham Councillor Scowen Councillor Mary John

30. Arrangement of Agenda; RESOLVED: That (1) all the business be considered with the press and public present;

(2) in accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 the following late item be admitted to the agenda for the reason indicated below:

(i) Addendum: Report of the Chief Planning Officer relating to various items on the agenda and based on information received after its despatch.

(Note: There were no public questions, petitions, deputations or representations on planning applications received from members of the public at the meeting).

31. Minutes; RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 July 1998, having been circulated, be signed as a correct record.

32. Deposited Plans: RESOLVED: That the decisions set out in abbreviated form on the plans schedule be made pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning,--(Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (General) Regulations 1992, as appropriate, and the Director of Environmental Service be authorised to issue the appropriate decision notices.

33. Orchard Court Stonegrove, Edgware: The Sub-Committee considered taking enforcement action with regard to both the unauthorised construction of an elevated walkway, with railings and concrete ramp, supporting brick walls, and level concrete path at Orchard Court, and also the unauthorised construction of a concrete pathway, abutting the south-eastern edge of the fiat 14A at Orchard Court.

It was considered that the extent of the elevated walkway with its associated ramp, concrete footpath and supporting walls, by reason of its siting, design and the materials used, detracted from the character and appearance of both the building to which it was attached and Orchard Court's quadrangle and also harmed the visual and garden-space amenities available to residents of Orchard Court. Further, the hardsurfaced pathway, abutting the north-western edge of the south-eastern elevation of the flat known as 14A Orchard Court, was unacceptable as it caused the formation of a pool which created a nuisance harming the amenity of the residents of the adjacent dwelling. Accordingly it was

RESOLVED:

That the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council be authorised to:

(a) Issue an Enforcement Notice pursuant to Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring

(i) the removal of the elevated walkway and ramp, together with their associated supporting walls, railings, step and the adjoining level pathway and the re-turfing of the affected area (time for compliance - 6 months).

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING - VOL3 HPPAE29

(ii) the making good of the south-eastern flank of the 5 storey extension to Orchard: Court (time for compliance - 6 months).

(ill) the removal of the unauthorised, section of hard-surfacing which abuts the northern most section of me south-eastern edge of the flat at 14A Orchard Court; or the installation, of adequate drainage to ensure that a pool is not formed on the iard- soiface (time for compliance - 3 months).


(i) supply the information required by the Borough, Secretary and Solicitor to the Council through the Issue of Notices: under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990-

and/or


34. 5 Wetherall Drive. Stamnore: The Sub-Committee considered taking enforcement action with regard to the unauthorised construction of a single storey rear extension at the above-property. It was considered that the extension,, by reason of bulk and depth, would nave an undue effect on, the amenity of me neighbouring property.

RESOLVED: That the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council be authorised toe

(a) Issue an Enforcement Notice pursuant to Section 172 of the Town, and Country Planning Act: 1990 requiring the reduction of the depth, of the single storey extension to no more than 3.05 metres for a distance of 32. metres from the joint boundary with 3 Wetheral Drive (time for compliance - 6 months);;


(i) ' supply the information required by the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to the Council - through, the issue of Notices under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning. Act

1990

and/or


35. Flapping Appeals: Members received a report from the Chief Planning Officer detailing both the appeals being dealt and those awaiting decision. In response to a query from, a Member, the Chief Planning Officer undertook to advise Councilor Seymour ia respect of the status, of theappeal at 41 Welldon 'Crescent

RESOLVED: That me-report be noted

36. Executive Action: RESOLVED: To note and, insofar as: may be necessary to confirm the following executive action implemented following consultation with, the Chairman and Nominated Members since the last meeting of the Sub-Committee:

Unauthorised Use at 10B Oxford RoadL Wealdstone

Authorised the Borough Secretary and Solicitor to' the Council to:

(a) Issue an Enforcement Notice pursuant to Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 19901 requiring the cessation of the use of'the site for car repairs, servicing,, bodywork repairs, welding, MOT testing, tyre and exhaust fitting, other than in accordance with planning permission EAST/30S/98/FUL (time for compEance- 1 month);

(b) Institute legal proceedings inthe event of failure to:-

(i) supply the information required by the Borough Secretary and, SoEcitor to the Council through the issue of Notices under Section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

and/or

(if) comply with the Enforcement Notice-

DPPAE30VOL.3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

37. Telecommunications Development The following telecommunications development applications . were reported on the addendum sheet:

(1) EAST/693/98/DTD - 1 Sheridan House, 17 St Ann's Road, Harrow - Equipment Cabin at Roof Level.

(2) EAST/737/98/DTD - 12 Buckingham Parade, The Broadway, Stanmore - Replacement Radio Equipment Cabin at Roof Level.

RESOLVED: That prior approval of details of siting and external appearance be not required subject to the following informatives.

1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements in the attached Considerate Contractor Code of Practice, in the interests of minimising any adverse effects arising from building operations.

2. The applicant is advised that this decision relates only to the planning requirements imposed by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

(Note: The meeting closed at 8.11 pm)

(Signed) RFROGLEY Chairman

BEWLOPMENTAND PLANNING VOL.3BPPAW3I

LEST 140. 1/01 APPLICATION NO: EAST/534/98/FUL .

LOCATION: 127-129 London Road, Stanmore

APPLICANT: lie Stephen, Greenbuiy Partnership for Alexis Homes Ltd

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment to Provide Four Storey Building of Seven Hats, with Padding.

DECISION: Had the appJScant not appealed against the non-determination of the application, the application would nave been refused, for the reasons set out in the officer report

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

1/02 APPLICATION NO: EAST/553/98/FUL

393 High Road, Harrow Weald

Horn Heller for Mr R, Mr J & Mr M Popat

Change of Use: Retail, to Financial & Professional Services (Class Al to A2) andParking.

REFUSED for the reason reported.

(Notes: (1) It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred for renotifieation on the basis that the Sub-Committee was minded to grant permission. Upon being; put to' the vote, this was lost;

(2) Councilors. Mrs Bath, Mary Graham, Mary John and Seymour wished to be recorded as1 having voted, in ferour of the amendment and against the decision: to refiise permission). "

LIST NO. 1/03 APPLICATION NO: EAST/584/98/CON

LOCATION: Orchard Court, Stonegrove, Edgware

APPLICANT: KLC Designs for St Anthony's Homes Ltd,

PROPOSAL: Retention of Hardsurfeced Footpaths^ Steps and Access Ramp Adjacent to Block C.

DECISION: REFUSED for the reasons reported (see also minute 33)

LIST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

1/04 APPLICATION NO: EAST/649/9S/FUL

57 Burnt Oak Broadway, Edgware

Mr M Green for Mr A Bearmaa

Change of Use: Retail to Food and Drink, (Class Al to Class A3).

REFUSED for the reason reported and the following, addMonal'reason:

2., Car parking for a take-away use cannot be satisfactorily provided within the curtilage of the site: to meet Hie CounciF^mirmnom requirements: in respect of the development, and the likely increase in parking on the neighbouring highwayjs) would be detrimental to' the- fee flow and safety of .traffic on the-neighbouring; Mghway(s).



LOCATION: Mossport House, 7/9 The Bridge, Wealdstone

APPLICANT: Yellow Cars Ltd

PROPOSAL: Change of Use of 2nd Floor from Office to Mini Cab and Self Drive Booking Office

DECISION: REFUSED for the reason reported.


LOCATION: 310 Station Road, Harrow

APPLICANT: Collins Cady Pope Partnership for James Warner

PROPOSAL: Two Storey Replacement Building to Provide Restaurant (Class A3) and Self Contained Flat

DECISION: DEFERRED at officer's request to consider revised plans and for renotification as necessary.


LOCATION: 6,7 & 8 Whitchurch Parade, Whitchurch Lane, Edgware

APPLICANT: MrMMunir

PROPOSAL: Change of User Retail to Restaurant (Class Al to Class A3).

DECISION: REFUSED for the reason reported.


LOCATION: 5 Wetheral Drive, Stanmore

APPLICANT: K Sisodia for Mr T Mistry

PROPOSAL: First Floor & Two Storey Side to Rear Single Storey Front and Rear Extension (Revised)

DECISION: REFUSED for the reason reported (see also minute 34).

LIST NO. 1/09 APPLICATION NO: EAST/43 8/98/FUL

LOCATION: 12-13 Station Parade, Kenton Lane, Harrow

APPLICANT: K Sisodia for Mr J Kerai

PROPOSAL: 2 Storey Rear Extension to Provide Ancillary Accommodation in Association with Change of Use: Class Al to A3 (Retail to Food and Drink): Self Contained Flat; Shop Front.


DE1VELOPMENT AND PLANNING VQL3 BPPAE33

LIST NO. 2/01 APPLICATION NO: EAST/60'7/98/FUL .

LOCATION: 2 Peterborough Road^ Harrow

APPLICANT: IftMte Associates for HI ALtd

PROPOSAL: Change of Use of 1st and 2nd Floors from Office to Language School (Class Bl toDl)

BECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions reported and the following amended condition 2: 2nd line - substitute 08.45 Ms for 0830 hours.


LOCATION: lOCarlton Avenue, Kenton

APPLICANT: RBrody

PROPOSAL: Single Storey Side Extension and Conversion to 2 Self Contamed Flats with Parking.

BECISION: GRANTED1 subject to the conditions and informative reported.

LEST NO.

LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

PROPOSAL:

BECISION:

EAST/646/98/FUL2/03 APPLICATION NO:

ffighfield, BrookshiB, Harrow Weald

Anglian Home Improvements for Mr Thomas

First Floor Rear Conservatory Extension

GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative reported.

LEST NO. 2/04 APPLICATION NO: EAST/524/9&FUL

LOCATION: 5 Dukes Avenue,, Edgware

APPLICANT: Marcel Blum for Mr & Mrs RLeigh

PROPOSAL: Alterations: to Roof with Dormers at Sides and Rear

BECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions; and informarives reported.


LOCATION: 18 Adelaide Close, Stanmore

APPLICANT: Edward K McGuire Surveyors for Mr J Ginsberg

PROPOSAL: Single Storey Side,, Single and Two Storey Side and Rear Extensions with Front .and Rear Dormers.

DECISION: DEFERRED for a. Members'site visit '-

EAST/509/98/FULLIST NO. 2/06 APPLICATION NO:

LOCATION: 35 Little Common, Stanmore

APPLICANT: M W Easton for Paul Lewis.

PROPOSAL: Single and, Two> Storey Side/Rear Extension and Conversion of Garage to Habitable Room.


DPPAE 34 -VOL. 3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

LIST NO. 2/07 APPLICATION NO: EAST/571/98/FUL '

LOCATION: 47 Dalkeith Grove, Stanmore

APPLICANT: Mrs A Mackenzie

PROPOSAL: Change of Use of Part Ground Floor to 10 Place Nursery School (Class C3 to Class Dl)

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions reported and the following amended conditions:

4. Amend to read: The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition within one year of the date of the commencement of the use, such date to be notified in writing to the Local Planning Authority by the applicant.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and to permit reconsideration in the light of circumstances then prevailing.

5. add "in school terms" after "inclusive"6. add "current" before "occupier"


LOCATION: 8 London Road, Stanmore

APPLICANT: Anglian Home Improvements for Mr & Mrs Vellerman

PROPOSAL: Rear Conservatory


(Notes: (i) A proposal that the application be refused was, upon being put to a vote, lost;

(ii) Councillors Mrs Bath, Mary John and Seymour wished to be recorded as having voted against the decision to grant permission).


APPLICANT: Cunnane Town Planning for Whitbread Property

LOCATION: Travellers Rest P.H., Kenton Road, Kenton

PROPOSAL: Three Storey Rear Extension to Provide 26 Hotel Bedrooms with Parking.

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative reported and the following amended and additional condition: "

5. insert "to Kenton Road" after "access".

10. Development shall not commence until details of on and off-site drainageworks have been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. Noworks which result in the discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall becommenced until the off-site drainage works referred to above have beencompleted.Reason: To ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided.

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING VOL3 BPFAE35

LIST NO. 2/10 APPLICATION NO: EAST/592/98/FUL -

APPLICANT: Bedoeley Homes Ltd

LOCATION: 47UxbridgeRoad, Stanmore

PROPOSAL: Demolition of Existing House and Construction of 2 Detached-Houses wife Integral Garages, Parking; and Access.

DECISION: DEFERRED for Members" Site Visit


APPLICANT: Wakelln Associates for Steiner Training Ltd

LOCATION: R/Q 57/65 The Broadway, Stanmore

PROPOSAL: Revised Car Parking with Landscaping;

DECISION: GRANTED subject to the conditions reported.

LIST NO.

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

EAST/602/98/FUL

LIST NO. 2/12 . APPLICATION NO: EAST/673/98/LA3

APPLICANT: Mr lan Scroggs for Head-of Housing Services

LOCATION: 11 Elmgrove Crescent, Harrow

PROPOSAL: Ramps with. Associated Railings at Front ofHouse andFrontFence (1.2MHigh)

DECISION: - GRANTED subject to the conditions and infoimatives reported.

APPLICATION NO: EAST/670/9S/FUL2/13

MrJGPrideaux

40 Weald Rise, Harrow Weald

Single Storey Rear Conservatory Extension

GRANTED subject to the condition and infoimatives, reported."


APPLICANT: H Varsani for Mr1 &. Mrs, Chow


PROPOSAL: LOMand 1.8M Fence to Park Flank Boundary to Front and Rear Gardens

DECISION: WITHDRAWN from Agenda

LIST NO.

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

DECISION:

APPLICATION NO: EAST/532/98/FUL2/15

MrAMain

11 Canons Drive,, Edgware

Replacement: Hardsurfacing of Existing Driveway, Original Footpath and Part of Front Garden with Tarmacadam.

GRANTED subject to1 the conditions, and informative reported and fee following amended condition, 2: Add "such details, to include a, gravel embedded finish".

DEVELOKtfEI^AI®-PLA3NBSEE?G VOL3DPIDF6

VOL. 3

UDP AND REVIEW PANEL 16 SEPTEMBER 1998

Chairman: * Councilor Shah

Councilors: * Alexander * Mary John (2)* Brogley * MrsKinnear* Ingram * Lawrence

* Denotes. Member present(2) Denotes Category of Reserve Member


RECOMMENDATION. 1 - Revised Affordable Housing Policy

Your Panel at its last meeting agreed, that the approach to the revision of the Council's amended Affordable Housing Policy H9 should be in line with the provisions of Circular 6/98: Planning and Affordable Housing and that greater weight would be attached, to the Circular at appeals relative to the Council's own amended Affordable Housing Policy. This was; in order to1 be able to secure on-site provision of affordable housing; on, appropriate sites.

Consideration has now been given to a report from the Chief Planning Officer which outlined the main policy options with respect to the level at wMcii the site size threshold for requiring affordable housing could be set. The report, also set out: the policy changes, required and the foim of wording for the new PoEcy and its reasoned justification.,

The report set out the background to the growing problem of the lack of'affordable housing in, the Borough and .how the problem, could be addressed. It was noted that for Harrow and other Boroughs with very few large housing sites, the potential contribution to meet .housing needs was severely limited under the present policy. In addition, the discretion for the developer to choose tomake commuted payments did not assist in making land available, and in, terms of lost opportunities actually exacerbated the problem. The revised Circular provided scope to' make on- site provision mandatory, to lower the threshold to bring more sites within, the policy parameters; and to vary the percentage of affordable housing units to be provided.

'The officer report set out Hie results of the examination that had taken place of planning, permissions granted between 1995 and, 1997 for sites resulting in, development of 10 or more units. The results of this analysis showed that, most: future residential developments would be unaffected, by a new Policy based on. a threshold of 25 units recommended for Outer London by the Circular. Unless the mreshold was set at a lower level, the Council's ability to secure additional, new-build, affordable housing would be constrained. The report went on to address, the options for threshold size ranging from a threshold of 10 units; and above to one of 25 units and above.

"With regard to the issue of financial or other contributions in lieu of on-site provision, the Circular clearly acknowledged a very strong preference for on-site provision where possible. Accordingly, only in very exceptional circumstances, could financial or other contributions, be acceptable in Harrow because of the lack of development sites. The -wording; of the suggested revised, policy reflected this. Appendix 1 to the report set out both the preamble,, the new proposed new policy, the definition of "Affordable Housing"1 and the reasoned justification.

It was the view of the majority of the Panel that a, threshold of 15 units; as, suggested by the Housing Committee, should be adopted,, and on larger sites, the provision of up to 50% of the land or units for affordable housing, should be sought The basis, for this was that, due to the lack of available sites in Harrow, the recommended threshold, in the Circular for Outer London of 25 units, and above would not adequately address the acute shortage of affordable housing; in the Borough. The point was also made that,, by seeking to provide affordable housing, on smaller sites, this would help spread social housing; throughout the Borough, rather than concentrating solely on, the very few larger sites that were available.

A minority of the Panel did not support, this approach and considered that: the threshold should not be reduced to 15 units.

DPUDP7 VOL.3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

In recommending the reduction in the unit threshold to 15 units, it was agreed that the area threshold should be reduced on a pro rata basis and officers subsequently calculated this to be 0.6 rather than 0.5 hectares.

In agreeing the amendments to the wording of the proposed policy, officers were requested to amend the proposed reasoned justification to reflect these changes.


That (1) the replacement of the current Affordable Housing Policy with the new Policy as set out in Appendix 1 to the officer report, subject to the following changes, be agreed:

Delete 3rd Line of new Policy which states ".... 20 or more dwellings, or residential sites of 0.75 hectares or more..." and replace with ".... 15 or more dwellings, or residential sites of 0.6 hectares or more...."

Within new policy, amend B to read "On larger sites, seek the provision of up to 50% of the land or units in order to ensure that the overall affordable housing target is met".

Within new policy, amend 2nd line of C to read ".... occupation of affordable housing, provided under (A) or (B) above..."

(2) the new Policy be recommended to Full Council for adoption for Development Control purposes.

(Note: Councillors Mrs Kinnear and Mary John wished to be recorded as having voted against the amendments to the revised affordable housing policy as detailed above).

RECOMMENDATION 2 - Harrow UDP Policy Reviews

Your Panel has given consideration to a number of reports from the Chief Planning Officer which set out the results of the Policy Reviews that had been carried out on the following subject areas:

(i) Review of Existing Proposal Site Designations

(ii) Change of Use of Shops

(iii) Conservation and Historic Buildings

(iv) Employment Policies

Your Panel was being asked to comment on the suggested policies and reasoned justifications and the review of the existing proposal site designations as a basis for their subsequent inclusion in the proposed Harrow UDP Alterations. It was noted that the policy reviews which were included in this report were inter-related with other policy reviews which had yet to be brought to the Panel. Only when the Council published the proposed Alterations would these policies become a material consideration for Development Control purposes. Furthermore, there might well be other changes to circumstances in the interim or implications arising from subsequent policy reviews which would warrant further adjustments or improvements to the policies being considered by the Panel over the coming months.

Members gave detailed consideration to each of these reports and made the following comments and alterations:

Review of Existing Proposal Site Designations

Proposal Site 6 - Park View. Hatch End - It was agreed to invite the London Ecology Unit to carry out an investigation of the site to assess its nature conservation value.

Proposal Site 8 - Land adjacent to Belmont Health Centre. Belmont Circle - It was pointed out that the Planning Sub-Committee (East) had previously agreed that any development of the site should not impinge on the adjacent nature trail and it was agreed that this should be reflected in the description of the site.

Proposal Site 21 - Hunt Kennard/Unigate/and Adjacent Land. Greenhill Way - It was agreed to refer the designation of this site to the Traffic, Transport and Road Safety Sub-Committee for comment notwithstanding the fact that it was anticipated that a planning application was to be submitted in the near future.

BEVELOPMENTAND-PLA3SNMG VOL3BPODP8

At the conclusion of the discussion, the Chairman, stressed that the designation of both the existing proposal sites and possible new sites were still tinder discussion and review and,, notwithstanding the proposed designations of existing sites, set out in this report and as; agreed, by the Panel,, further consideration might well be necessary at a later stage. He also indicated that it would be appropriate to refer, in due course, the designation of a number of these sites where the Council had an interest to the Finance and Property Sub-Committee.

Change of Use of Shops

Para 5.45 - amend 1st line to read "Some A2 and, A3 uses; (eg banks...)

new para 5.46 - 5th line to read "... These will not normally be permitted..."1

Revised Policy S14 - delete (H) as a criterion and incorporate wording in a, sub-paragraph,, and similarly, delete (H) in revised policy S15 and incorporate wording in. a sub-paragraph.

New polcy - p37 - (B) "Proximity of Residential properties, add "particularly fiats; above the premises".

Para 5.54 - last sentence amend to read "Where it is probable that unreasonable residential disturbance_"

Revised Polcy SIS - amend C C' to read "... is. easily accessible by pedestrians, cyclists and, public transport users; and...."

Conservation and Historic Buildings

With regard to Policy E34 which related, to the protection of the Borough's, listed, buildings, concern was raised by several Members, about the need, for more detailed information, when, considering applications for listed building consent and where design Issues were of particular significance. It was suggested, that, the reasoned justification be amended to make reference to these concerns. Responding, the Chief Planning Officer undertook to' consider this; matter further. He advised that this could be best: addressed in various; ways Including, UDP polcy amendments, supplementary planning guidance and in, notes provided to applicants. He undertook to report back on this, either to the Panel or the Development and Planning Committee, as appropriate.

Employment Policies

Polcy EM2 - Reasoned Justification - It was agreed to amend the last sentence (para 4.23) to read ""Where it is appropriate me Council will require mat the developer makes improvements; to the access arrangements and/or put, in place arrangements to restrict car use by employees such as green travel plans.

It was reported that the Council was about to employ Consultants, to! undertake1 a survey of the office 'Stock in the Borough, as part of the review of employment policies. Members requested a copy of the terms of reference being, given to the Consultants.

Resolved to RECQMMENP:

That (1) the comments on me suggested policies and reasoned justifications,, and existing; proposal site designations set out in the report of the Chief Planning Officer, subject to the" above amendments, be agreed as the basis, for their subsequent Inclusion In, the _ proposed, UDP alterations;

(2) the appropriate references be made to' other Committees as, set out In the report on the Review-of Existing Proposal- Site Designations and as, detailed above.

EECOMMEMDATIOM 3 - Development Options for 1/11 Rosslvn Crescentf24-34 Station Road. Harrow

The Harrow UDP identified 1-11 Rosslyn Crescent/24-34 Station Road,. Harrow as. a Proposal Site, to be used for the development, of a new divisional police station. It was now apparent that the Metropolitan Polce no longer required this, site; for their1 operational purposes. A planning application for a retail warehouse on the site had been, refused and an, appeal subsequently .dismissed.. Accordingly, your Panel received a, report of the Chief Planning Officer which reviewed the preferred uses for the site in the context of planning policy for the Borough to ensure the effective use of the site.

DPUDP9VOL.3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

The Panel at its last meeting had deferred consideration of a report on development options for the site, pending the wider review of the existing proposal site designations. This report, however, had been considered by the Housing Committee who had resolved to advise the Panel that"... the residential development on the site should be for affordable housing, in -conjunction with hostel provision, in a mixed use development, incorporating an element of community use".

The officer report outlined the context for the future designation of the site, the implications for the site of the Harrow Strategic Economic Area within which it lay, and the report outlined possible suitable uses for the site. It was noted that circumstances had changed since the last meeting in that the site had recently been marketed on behalf of the Metropolitan Police and was understood to have been acquired by a Housing Association with a view to development for affordable housing purposes. It had also been reported that the Association had been in discussion with the adjoining central mosque to see if development could accommodate the mosque's own expansion plans which were severely constrained by their existing site.

In addition to the officer report, a letter from the agents acting for the owners of the site commenting on the report was tabled.

Your Panel discussed the proposed designation of this site and also whether the boundary of the proposal site should be extended to included the Mosque. Following debate; and upon being put to a vote, it was


That (1) the recommendation of the Housing Committee that any residential development of the site should be for affordable housing be noted;

(2) it be noted that the site has been marketed and is understood to have been acquired by a Housing Association;

(3) the boundary of the proposal site be extended to include the Central Mosque and the site be designated for a mixed use incorporating housing (preferably all affordable housing) and community use, for inclusion in the Harrow UDP Alterations;

(4) the Housing Committee be advised of these decisions.

RECOMMENDATION 4 - Reference of Strategically Important Planning Applications to LPAC

The Chief Planning Officer reported to your Panel, that in addition to commenting on the planning policies implemented by Boroughs in their Unitary Development Plans, LPAC also performed a strategic planning function by commenting on individual planning proposals which were deemed to be of strategic land use and planning importance. Although LPAC had agreed in 1994 to a voluntary code of practice for dealing with such proposals and applications (a copy of this was set out in Appendix 1 to the officer report) together with voluntary guidelines for such references (Appendix 2) this Authority had never formally agreed to adopt these guidelines.

It was the recommendation of the Chief Planning Officer that this Council should now formally agree to implement the voluntary guidelines and accordingly it was

Resolved to RECOMMEND:.

That the relevant, current voluntary guidelines for the reference of strategically important land use and transportation proposals to LPAC be implemented.

RECOMMENDATION 5 - Recovery of Costs of Public Local Inquiries:

The Chief Planning Officer reported that the Government (DETR) had recently published a consultation paper on "the Recovery of Costs of Public Local Inquiries held into Planning Matters". The recovery of costs related only to appeals where public inquiries were involved and related only to the costs incurred by the Planning Inspectorate. In putting forward the proposal for consultation, the Government had looked at three options - the status quo, ie no recovery of costs, the recovery of all costs of all planning public local inquiries, or the recovery of costs of some cases only, eg major development proposals. The Government favoured the recovery of all costs of all planning local inquiries.

DEVELOPMENT AND FLANKING VOL3 DPUODP10

The report set out the officer comment on these proposals and Members' views were sought on, whether feey felt the current situation represented ihe right balance between the various, appeal procedures, and therefore whether further disincentives to1 appellants to elect for pubEc inquiry1 were necessary. It was noted that comments were invited by 25 September 1998. Members from all groups expressed their opposition to the proposed recovery by ihe DETR of all costs of all planning public local inquiries.

Whilst the concerns of fee Government about the costs, of holding public, inquiries were recognised, it was noted that tiiere were cases, where the quasi-judicial, nature of an, inquiry was .essential to felly explore the arguments, and the imposition of costs1 might prevent this, occurring where the appellant had limited means. If the Government wished to reduce: the number of public inquiries, the onus should be oa DETR to' determine which cases were best dealt: with through the Inquiry process, rather than allowing the ability to pay to be the determining factor.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was, agreed that DETR be advised of the Council's opposition to this proposal and that the Council favoured the stains quo.

Resolved to, RECOMMEND:

To note the Panel's comments which have formed the basis of the Council's response to theconsultation paper.

PART H- MINUTES

9. Reserve Members: RESOLVED: To note the attendance at this; meeting; of the followingappointed Reserve Member:,


Councillor Seowen Councillor Mary John

10. Arrangement of Agenda: RESOLVED: That all the business be considered with the press andpublic present

11. Mantes: RESOLVED: That the minutes, of the meeting held on, 18 June 1998, having been circulated, "be taken as read and, signed as, a, correct record.

12. Strategic. District and Local Centres: Comparative Analysis: Hie Panel considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer which comprised a discussion on a series of data tables providing, information on all the town centres in the Borough,, ranking; them, in terms, of size and, function and identifying any trends in "health" matters, including, numbers; of vacancies and pedestrian counts. The report built up a comparative picture and allowed., to some degree,, each centre to be assessed in relation to the others.

Paragraph' 7.4 slated that the analysis, showed, how important: large foodstores were to the health ofa centre. A Member queried what; the definition of larger foodstores was as he was concerned that,

very large food stores could have a detrimental effect on the health of a centre. In response theChief Planning Officer advised that this referred to. a size comparable existing stores in theBorough.

Members challenged the wording, in, para 53 in which it was, stated that "Wealdstone is still in a .state of uncertainty with regard to Asda and this is shown in a, reasonably high rate: of vacant units (11%)." It was pointed out that there could be other reasons, for ihe high vacancy "rate not relating to Asda and this was accepted by Officers,.,

RESOLVED: That the contents of the report which provided background information for thereview of the Shopping .and Town Centres Chapter of the Harrow UDP be noted.

13. Tree Preservation Orders: Draft Regulations - Consultation Paper: The Chief Planning Officer reported to the Panel OB the proposed changes to' the Tree Preservation Order system to' which the Government was seeking comments; by way of a draft regulations, consultation paper. It was noted that a letter had already been sent to' the DETR giving, a preliminary officer response to the consultation paper. The proposed changes were welcomed as they served to, clarify procedures and were in line with the 1994 review which had previously undergone extensive consultation. However, it was noted that only 10 of the 24 reforms previously raised were to be dealt with and it; was a view of the Council that, ihe Government: should be urged to consider implementing the whole of fee 1994 review.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted

DPUDP11 VOL.3 DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

14. Residential Land Availability Survey - June 1998 Update; The Chief Planning Officer reported that the Residential Land Availability Survey (KLAS) was updated every 6 months and provided a snapshot of new residential developments and conversion activity. It was an important mechanism in enabling the Council to identify how much land was being brought forward for development, which in turn would inform how far the Council was progressing in meeting housing provision requirements set down in strategic guidance. Accordingly consideration was given to the June 1998 update.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted and the June 1998 update as set out in the Appendix to the officer report be approved.

(Note: The meeting closed at 9.29 pm)

(Signed) N SHAH Chairman

development and planning committee · 2013. 3. 6. · davy house, lyons road, harrow part of the...

Documents