Agenda item

19/0002 709 Harrow Road, Wembley, HA0 2LL

Minutes:

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing rear extension and erection of a replacement single storey rear extension for the commercial premises (as amended by revised plans).

 

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions.

 

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 within the Committee reports.

 

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.

 

Ms Victoria McDonagh (Area Planning Manager) introduced the report and answered members’ questions. With reference to the supplementary report, she drew attention to an additional objection received from No. 16 District Road (the organiser of the petition) on the need for re-consultation and reference to permitted development rights.  She advised on the extent of consultation and clarified that there was no statutory requirement for the LPA to re-consult on the revised plans which were not material. She continued that the application was a full planning application and that no reference had been made within the committee report to permitted development.

 

Mrs Kamil Kaul (objector) informed the Committee that officers had not consulted some residents of Central and Road District Road nor assessed the impact of the development on residents of Station Approach, District Road and Central Road.  She added that due to ambiguity about the address of the property (according to Land Registry records), Members may be giving planning permission to a different property address.  In response to members’ queries, Mrs Kaul stated that despite the potential problem of some properties to be overlooked, those residents had not been consulted and with that in view, asked that the consultation should be re-opened. 

 

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Daly (ward member) stated that she had been approached by the local residents.   Councillor Daly went on to say that she was pleased with the changes made to the proposed development, however, she was concerned there was no wider consultation to include occupiers who would be impacted upon by the development.

 

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Stephens (ward member) stated that she had been approached by the local residents.   Councillor Stephens echoed the sentiments expressed by Councillor Daly including the scope of consultation, a request for re-consultation.  He also expressed concerns about traffic in terms of access for emergency vehicles, servicing facilities for loading and unloading.

 

In response to the consultation issues raised,  Councillor Denselow (Committee Chair) asked that in view of the petition received and the consultation carried out, whether the Councillors thought that there were people in the area who were directly affected who weren’t aware of the proposal, and would it be likely that more consultation would raise issues not currently being considered. The Councillors agreed probably not.

 

Ms McDonagh then responded to issues raised by Members.  She clarified that Members were being asked to decide on this application on current policy as although, previously granted planning permission in 2013, the policy context had changed.  She continued that as a commercial unit the property does not have significant permitted development rights.  Having explained the consultation, Ms McDonagh added that the level of consultation exceeded the statutory requirement.  She clarified that the Council’s property database listed the site as 709 Harrow Road HA0 2LL.  She informed the Committee that a condition had been imposed to ensure that the use of the extension remained ancillary to the main building with no sub-division envisaged.  She continued that officers in Transportation had advised that the proposal would not give rise to highways issues of concern and added that servicing would be mainly by ‘transit vans’ and the extension would not change emergency vehicle access. In conclusion, Ms McDonagh reiterated that the scheme was for a single storey extension with no direct overlooking to a habitable room due to excessive distances and the use of roller shutters.

 

DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended.

(Voting on the recommendation was: For 7, Against 0)

 

Supporting documents: