Agenda item
2A, Preston Waye and 283, 285 & 287 Preston Road, Harrow, HA3 (Ref. 18/4902)
Decision:
Deferred to another meeting for the reasons for refusal to be assessed by officers in a follow-up report.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of buildings and erection of a 2 to 4 storey residential building comprising 35 self-contained flats (6 x studios, 12 x 1 bed, 10 x two bed and 7 x 3 bed) with basement level, provision for car and cycle parking and associated landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out within the reports and that the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
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 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.
That, if by the "expiry date" of the planning application 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.
Mr Damian Manhertz (Development Management Team Leader) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions. In reference to the supplementary report, Mr Manhertz clarified that a gate in the location was evaluated but as it was not considered to be necessary it was not included in the final proposal. He then outlined the differences between the current application and the previous application that was refused.
Members then discussed the application during which they expressed concerns that the design of the building was out of context and character with the buildings in the area. The scale, massing and design of the building were of concern to members. It was also felt that the proposed development would give rise to issues regarding highway flow and safety. Members considered that the proposal is likely to result in an excessive level of over-spill parking within a narrow road and the associated vehicle movements would result in highway safety issues.. Members also expressed concerns about the scheme which proposed 35 flats comprising (6 x studios, 12 x 1 bed, 10 x two bed and 7 x 3 bed) but included an insufficient level and mix of Affordable Housing. Members were therefore minded to refuse the application.
In addressing Members’ concerns Mr Manhertz responded that although the proposal looked different from existing properties within the area, it was not likely to cause harm or detriment to the area. Reference was made to the scale of buildings within the retail frontages. He continued that the Transportation Team had assessed the scheme and concluded that the development would not give rise to highway or servicing problems. In respect of the affordable housing, Mr Manhertz stated that the viability of the proposed development had been independently assessed and was considered to demonstrate that the proposal would provide the maximum reasonable proportion of Affordable Housing.
Having heard the officer’s response, Members were minded to refuse the application and in accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, decided to defer the application for a report to be prepared on the matters of concern raised within this meeting.
DECISION: Deferred to another meeting for the reasons for refusal to be assessed by officers in a follow-up report.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 0, Against 7).
(Voting on the deferral was as follows: For 7, Against 0).
Supporting documents:
- 04 - 18-4902 - 2A, Preston Waye and 283, 285 & 287 Preston Road, Harrow,..., item 4. PDF 696 KB
- 18.4902 SUPP Preston Waye, item 4. PDF 94 KB