Agenda item
Northwick Park Hospital, Watford Road, Harrow, HA1 3UJ (Ref. 14/4508)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Tuesday 13 January 2015 7.00 pm (Item 4.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 4.
Decision:
Granted planning permission as recommended subject to additional conditions requiring wildlife assessment and details of sustainable drainage measures and revision to Condition 6 specifying clear details of route for disabled persons to entrance if new bays outside of application site.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Erection of part 4 to 5 storey building constructed over an existing substation and car parking located near Block J, providing ward accommodation on first, second and third floors along with an IDAR Unit, plant area, with ancillary café on the ground floor, a linked bridge to Block E, reconfiguration of parking area and associated landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION:
(a) Grant planning permission subject an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report and subject to conditions listed after paragraph 75, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
With reference to the supplementary report, Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager) provided responses to concerns expressed by Councillor Perrin. She stated that the consultation process was carried out in accordance with statutory guidelines. Site notices were displayed adjacent to the site and the planning application publicised in the local press and in addition Sudbury Court Residents’ Association and ward councillors of both Brent and Harrow were consulted on the application. She drew members’ attention to responses received from various departments within the Council and the Environment Agency as set out in the main report. In respect of light pollution, Rachel Murrell clarified that given the existing buildings and lamp posts and the separation distance from the proposed ward to the golf course, it was unlikely that the application would give rise to wider light pollution nuisance.
Members heard that it was not considered necessary to require an ecological survey for the application as the site was located within a built up part of the hospital which was currently occupied by car parking and a substation. She also added that the application would be proposing some tree planting (details of which had been conditioned to any forthcoming consent) adding that the overall aspiration was to include wider tree planting within the hospital site which would form part of a wider strategy for the hospital as part of any redevelopment. On traffic congestion, she stated that the hospital had various car parking facilities including pay and display and therefore the loss of 10 parking bays was considered to be acceptable by officers in Transportation who advised that it would not lead to parking overspill on public highways.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Perrin, Ward Member stated that he had not been approached by anyone in connection with the application. He informed members that whilst in principle he had no objection to the application he expressed concerns about the complete disregard of wildlife and hedgerows, lack of ecological survey, lighting pollution from the golf course, traffic congestion and parking problems. Councillor Perrin requested a review of the lighting and emphasised the need for ecology survey, a Travel Plan and a Section 106 contribution to fund road repairs and consultation on possible introduction of controlled parking zones (CPZ) to address the inadequate parking provision in the area.
In response to members’ questions, Councillor Perrin stated that inadequate parking within the hospital compound was resulting in overspill parking in the local roads and causing traffic chaos. He clarified that the Section 106 funding could also be used for ecology survey.
Rachel Murrell advised members that the Travel Plan which already existed for the Accident and Emergency (A&E) Unit would be reviewed although the site was in close proximity to access routes and that condition 5 on lighting would be reviewed by Environmental services. Stephen Weeks (Head of Planning) drew members’ attention to condition 3 on noise emission but stressed that the existing site was a car park. He then recommended an additional condition requiring the applicant to submit details of drainage measures.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended subject to additional conditions requiring wildlife assessment and details of sustainable drainage measures and revision to Condition 6 specifying clear details of route for disabled persons to entrance if new bays outside of application site.
Supporting documents: