Agenda item
79-83 ODDS, Kenton Road, Harrow, HA3 0AH (Ref. 17/3717)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 17 January 2018 7.00 pm (Item 4.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 4.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwellinghouse and erection of a part three part four storey building comprising 39 self-contained flats (27 X 1bed, 8 x 2bed and 4 x 3bed) with associated basement car and cycle parking spaces accessed via new crossover off Rushout Avenue, bin stores, fencing and landscaping
RECOMMENDATION: Resolve to grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and referral to the Mayor of London.
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated in the Heads of Terms as set out in the report.
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the report.
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.
That, if by 3 months of the Committee date the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Victoria McDonagh (Area Planning Team Manager) introduced the scheme and answered members’ questions. With reference to the supplementary report, she drew members’ attention to the summary of additional comments on the proposal and officers’ responses. She then clarified the details submitted by the applicant on the units for disabled use, amended third floor plan and amended conditions 2 and 4.
Mr Alan Dean (objector) stated that although he accepted the principle of the development, he considered that the proposal constituted an overdevelopment of the site, causing overbearing and overlooking to his property. He added that Rushout Avenue, a 4 bus route with queuing traffic and a number of school children was an accident hot spot and therefore there was every need to review the highways assessment with a view to reducing traffic.
Mr Syed Rizvi (objector) speaking in a similar vein echoed the views expressed by the previous speaker, highlighting how dangerous the access to the development would be. He expressed a view that the impact of the junction and the obstruction of views by the fence had not been thoroughly assessed and questioned as to whether a transport statement had been submitted for the application.
In accordance with the planning Code of Practice, Councillor McLennan (speaking as a ward member) declared that she had been approached by residents who lived nearby. Councillor McLennan stated that although she was not averse to the development, she was concerned about the size, overdevelopment and the transport issues in and around Rushout Avenue with four bus routes. She continued that the development could give rise to on-street parking which with the double decker buses would worsen the transport problem in the area. She specified that a CPZ should be implemented in the area if approved. She noted that TfL were in the process of reducing the number of buses on the route and Churchill Avenue was to be made a cycling quietway to discourage vehicles, however, the proposal would not help in reducing traffic and suggested that consideration be given to changing access to Kenton Road so as to reduce the footprint.
In accordance with the planning Code of Practice, Councillor Daly (speaking as a ward member) declared that she had been approached by residents and that she had in the past consistently objected to the proposed development. Councillor Daly stated that whilst she accepted the principle of development on the site, she felt that there were issues regarding stacking and density that needed to be addressed. In addition, the proposal would give rise to transport problems particularly during the rush hour traffic with a backlog of cars trying to access the underground car park. Councillor Daly continued that the Council’s highways officers had not produced any evidence about the risks of using Rushout Avenue as the access point to the car park. She questioned whether alternative access arrangements had been considered.
Liz Alexander (applicant’s agent) and Nick Wilson (applicant’s architect) addressed the committee. Members heard that the proposal for 39 mixed residential units in a sustainable location use was policy compliant, with revisions made to ensure 6m set back as requested by Highways officers. They added that the proposed development would optimise the potential of the site and would deliver 4 shared ownership units, the maximum viable for the development. In response to embers’ questions, the agent and the architect stated that any attempt to deliver more shared units that stated would affect the viability of the scheme and that the delivery of the scheme could be jeopardised at lower densities.
In the ensuing discussion, members raised concerns about the parking situation, separation distances, density and amenity provisions of the development and questioned the scheme’s ability to achieve a 25% family units. Particular concern was also raised about the absence of Highways officers at the meeting to directly respond to issues of transportation significance including the possibility of a “car free development”.
Officers responded that the scheme was acceptable in density terms, maintaining appropriate relationship and daylighting. They clarified that the scheme did not exceed the maximum parking standards and had been evaluated by Highways officers to be acceptable. They set out that it could not be a “parking permit restricted development as it is not within a Controlled Parking Zone.
A motion was put forward to defer the application to the next meeting to enable highways officers to re-assess the scheme and clarify the transportation concerns raised by Members. This was put to the vote and declared lost. The substantive recommendation was then voted upon and declared carried on the chair’s casting vote.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended subject to amended condition 2 and 4 as set out in the supplementary report.
(Voting for approval was carried on the casting vote of the Chair with the initial votes cast as follows: For 3, Against 3 and Abstain 1).
Note: Councillor Daly having declared an interest withdrew from the meeting room and did not take part in the voting.
Supporting documents: