Agenda, decisions and minutes

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda.

09/268         3.  Caretakers House, Mount Stewart Infant Junior School,

                        Carlisle Gardens, Harrow, HA3 0JX

Councillor Sheth declared a prejudicial interest as a friend of his taught at Mount Stewart Infant School.  He withdrew from the meeting room and took no part in the discussion and voting during the consideration of this application.

Councillor Daly declared a prejudicial interest as a family member of hers was on the Board of Governors of Mount Stewart Infant School.  She withdrew from the meeting room and took no part in the discussion and voting during the consideration of this application.

10/0290          11.  30 Hopefield Avenue, London, NW6 6LH

Councillor Cummins declared a prejudicial interest as he had a close association with the applicant and one of speakers on this item.  He withdrew from the meeting room and took no part in the discussion and voting during the consideration of this application.

09/268         3.  Caretakers House, Mount Stewart Infant Junior School,

                        Carlisle Gardens, Harrow, HA3 0JX

Councillor Sheth declared a prejudicial interest as a friend of his taught at Mount Stewart Infant School.  He withdrew from the meeting room and took no part in the discussion and voting during the consideration of this application.

Councillor Daly declared a prejudicial interest as a family member of hers was on the Board of Governors of Mount Stewart Infant School.  She withdrew from the meeting room and took no part in the discussion and voting during the consideration of this application.

10/0290          11.  30 Hopefield Avenue, London, NW6 6LH

Councillor Cummins declared a prejudicial interest as he had a close association with the applicant and one of speakers on this item.  He withdrew from the meeting room and took no part in the discussion and voting during the consideration of this application.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 April 2010 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 April 2010 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions, an amendment to condition 3 and an additional condition 13 as set out in the supplementary information.

The Area Planning Manager, Rachel McConnell, drew Members’ attention to the supplementary information circulated at the meeting which included observations concerning the site visit, an amendment to condition 3 and an additional condition 13.

Ms Denise Burke, the applicant, stated that the site had been identified and agreed as a suitable location by the Executive in 2009.  The proposed Children’s Centre was intended to be within pram pushing distance to minimise transport impact and Denise Burke confirmed that it was intended that the Centre be open for 48 weeks of the year, with some services offered in the evening.

In reply to queries from Members, Ms Burke stated that other possible services the Centre would depend on the needs of the local community and may include an advice centre and promotion of healthy eating.  She added that the site was intended for visits by families with children of up to 5 years.

During Members discussion, Councillor Kataria enquired why there was no Section 106 Agreement.  In reply, the Head of Area Planning, Steve Weeks advised that Section 106 Agreements would only be sought from health and education providers if the impact on the area was significant, which in this case it was not perceived to be.

Planning permission granted subject to confirmation that referral to the Government Office for London is not required, conditions, and to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environmental Services to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor.

The Area Planning Manager, Rachel McConnell, advised that the application was to extend the existing planning permission granted on 13 June 2007.  She drew Members’ attention to the supplementary information circulated at the meeting which included observations concerning the site visit and further comments received.  She also advised of an amendment to the wording of the Section 106 Agreement.

Mr Robert Dunwell, speaking on behalf of the Queensbury Area Residents’ Association and Group of Associations, circulated a statement to all members with the permission of the Chair.  Mr Dunwell began by expressing concern that there was no mention in the report of a temporary community space for the Chinese community even though this was included in the Section 106 Agreement.  He felt that as the Chinese community had been without a Chinese Centre for over 2 years, that every effort should be made to ensure one was provided within a reasonable time, which he suggested be within 6 months.  Mr Dunwell also asked the Committee to consider the pressure on parking spaces for the site, especially in view of Barnet Council’s introduction of a Controlled Parking Zone scheme in the area.

Mr Fai Liu addressed the Committee as the Chair of the Oriental City Tenants’ Association (OCTA) which he stated represented the majority of interests within the Oriental community in the area.  He stated that the applicant had failed to re-provide the facilities promised since the removal of the tenants from the site in 2008, even though the applicant had agreed that the displacement would only be temporary.  Mr Liu expressed disappointment that there had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

The Head of Area Planning drew Members’ attention to further observations in the supplementary information circulated at the meeting.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

The Head of Area Planning confirmed that the application was fully Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) compliant.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

The Head of Area Planning confirmed that the application was fully SPG compliant. 

Councillor Katria queried why there was a condition requiring that the applicant provide two parking spaces.

In reply, the Head of Area Planning advised that this was consistent with Council Policy and the London Plan.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

The Area Planning Manager, Rachel McConnell, advised Members that an earlier application had been refused, however this application was a considerable improvement on the previous one.  She drew Members’ attention to the observations in the supplementary information circulated at the meeting.

Mr Mansur, in objecting to the application, stated that the proposed side extension would close the gap between the applicant and his property.  He also objected to the application on the grounds of excessive size, bulky appearance and invasion of privacy.  Mr Mansur added that if he was to make a similar application, a terracing effect would be created. 

Councillor Kataria enquired if the application met with SPG and sought further comments in respect of terracing.

In reply, the Head of Area Planning acknowledged concerns about terracing but advised that a gap would still exist and that SPG guidelines, which the application met, were tighter in respect of terracing compared to a number of other London boroughs.

Approve in principle but delegate final decision on the application to the Head of Area Planning in particular for him to consider whether a further section 106 contribution is required.

The Head of Area Planning advised that this was a retrospective application as the works carried out differed from what had initially been approved and some plans had been inaccurate.  Members noted that the application was being recommended for approval and the existing canopy already restricted the outlook.

Councillor Hashmi queried the provision of one parking space for each dwelling in view that they were three bedroom properties.  Councillor Kataria enquired why the Section 106 Agreement contribution was £18,000 as greater contributions had been required for similar applications of this scale.

In reply, the Head of Area Planning advised that the maximum amount of parking spaces were being provided in compliance with policy.  The Committee noted that the Section 106 Agreement had been transferred from the previous approval.

Members then agreed to the Head of Area Planning’s suggestion that the application be approved in principle but to delegate the final decision on the application to the Head of Area Planning in particular for him to consider whether a further Section 106 contribution is required.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

The Area Planning Manager confirmed that the application complied with SPG and that the objections received were addressed by condition 3 in the report.  Members were advised that the word ‘not’ in the third line of the paragraph titled ‘Rear Rooflight’ on page 91 should be deleted.

The Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, introduced the report and drew Members’ attention to the reason for refusal and to a further letter of objection from the Queens Park Residents’ Association (QPRA) and additional comments from the applicant in the supplementary information circulated at the meeting. 

Mr Stephen Greene, speaking in support of the application, stated that the applicant felt the application was sympathetic to the design and character of the local area and that the extension complied with Article 4.  He added that there would be no impact on light, that the application was not an overdevelopment and that the immediate neighbours had not objected to the scheme.

During discussion, Councillor Hashmi sought further clarity with regard to officers’ views on the proposals for a full length infill extension.  Councillor Kataria enquired whether the application would be considered acceptable if it was not in a Conservation Area.

In response to the issues raised, the Area Planning Manager acknowledged that the immediate neighbours had not objected to the application, however on balance the recommendation was for refusal, taking into account the concerns expressed by QPRA and because it failed to be sufficiently sympathetic to the character of the building in view that was within a Conservation Area.

The Head of Area Planning, Steve Weeks, added that full length infill extensions were generally discouraged and that the application would be more acceptable if the extension was broken up, possibly by including a lightwell and if was a lighter weight construction.  Members noted that similar applications in non-conservation areas had been allowed by Planning Inspectors on appeal in the past, however it was desirable that such applications were not visible from the street.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions, an additional condition that a construction method statement be provided, informatives, and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environmental Services to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor.

The Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, confirmed that the application complied with SPG.  He acknowledged an error in report highlighted by Councillor Cummins that erroneously stated that the adjoining property was 187 Chevening Road.

Councillor Kataria expressed disappointment that such a property was to be converted into flats.

The Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, advised that this was a good example of what proposals should be included for a side and rear extension.

Planning permission refused on the grounds of the scale of the development resulting in a poor relationship with properties on Rucklidge Avenue, lack of amenity space, loss of outlook to the flank of 139 High Street and to dwellings on Rucklidge Avenue and the impact on the frontage of the introduction of lightwells.

The Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, drew Members’ attention to further observations, amendments to the Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms, amendments to conditions 8 and 11 and an additional condition as set out in the supplementary information circulated at the meeting.

Mr Ian Britton introduced himself to the Committee and explained that he was representing the views of residents of Rucklidge Avenue and the High Street.  With the agreement of the Chair, he circulated information detailing his objections to the application.   He asserted that the application did not meet the following SPGs for the reasons mentioned:-

SPG 17 3.2– overbearing and dominant feature

SPG 17 3.4 – significant loss of sunlight

SPG 5.1 and 5.2 – gardens and outside amenity space not of sufficient size

SPG7 3.3 – loss of privacy caused by site’s windows being 17 metres from a neighbouring property’s bedroom and kitchen windows when it should be at least 20 metres

BE9 – proposals not of sufficient architectural quality

Mr Britton stated that a previous Planning Inspector’s report had expressed concern on the impact of the application on residents’ living conditions and he urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Ms Anne Ellam, in objecting to the application, stated that the development would lead to damage to neighbouring properties and lead to a lower quality of life for residents close to the site.  She felt that the proposals represented an over development of the site, that it was overly dense, it did not provide sufficient external recreational space contrary to SPG 5.1, neighbouring garden areas would suffer loss of light, children could be at risk from falling from the proposed balconies and it would exacerbate existing pressure on parking spaces.  In addition, Ms Ellam felt that the application would place increased strain on the local infrastructure, including schools and GPs.  She felt that the application needed to be significantly smaller in scale to make it more acceptable.

With the agreement of the Chair, a letter from Mrs Mehta outling her objections to the scheme was circulated to Members.

Mr Robin Bretherwick, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Committee. He stated that the application had been improved since the earlier Planning Appeal hearing and there had been a number of revisions since meeting with residents’ associations, ward councillors and Council officers.  Mr Bretherwick asserted that the application would assist the Council’s objective in providing sufficient affordable housing and met all the requirements suggested by Planning officers, including exceeding those of SPG 17.  Members heard that the site was located within a priority area for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

The Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, stated that the Planning Inspector had allowed an earlier appeal and that the Council had to be mindful of his comments.

The Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, drew Members’ attention to minor amendments to the wording of the Section 106 Agreement and letters in support of the application as set out in the supplementary information circulated at the meeting.  He stated that the applicant had submitted two applications, of which this one was for a flat-roofed dwelling and the officer’s recommendation was to approve planning permission.

Mr Martin West, a local resident, stated that a petition containing some 90 signatures objecting to the application had been submitted.  He objected to the application on the grounds of its character, appearance and design being out of keeping with the area, the detrimental effect on neighbouring gardens, the size and layout of the site and that it would represent an overdevelopment.  Mr West suggested that the site was too small to accommodate a residential dwelling and that there would be insufficient amenity space, especially for children and there was a lack of landscaping.  He added that if the application was approved, it could set an unwelcome precedent for approving similar applications in the area.

Mr Liam Clear, in also objecting to the application, expressed concern with regard to the detrimental impact the carbon footprint of developing this site would have on the environment.  He added that approving the application would be contrary to the Carbon Reduction Commitment and that the application had already been refused on several occasions previously.  He also expressed concern that approving the application could set a precedent and he urged the Committee to refuse planning permission.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shaw confirmed that she had been approached by both objectors and supporters of the application and that she was speaking in her capacity as a ward councillor.  Councillor Shaw referred to the application being refused several times previously and being dismissed on appeal.  She stated that the majority of residents were strongly objecting to the application and she referred to the petition objecting to it previously mentioned by Mr West.  She suggested that there was insufficient space on site for such a use and the proposals would impinge on properties in two neighbouring roads.  Councillor Shaw felt that a flat roof design was no more acceptable than the pitched roof design for the second application.  She commented that the provision of one parking space was insufficient and would exacerbate pressure on parking spaces in the area, whilst there would also be a loss of greenery.  Councillor Shaw  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

The Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, drew Members’ attention to additional comments and the additional reason for refusal as set out in the supplementary information circulated at the meeting.

Members unanimously agreed to defer the application for a site visit to consider the issues raised at the meeting.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions, an additional condition that the applicant provide further details of storage arrangements for waste prior to its collection and an informative.

The Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, drew Members’ attention to additional observations as set out in the supplementary information circulated at the meeting.

Mr Neil Eldem stated that a petition with approximately 100 signatures had been submitted objecting to the application.   Mr Eldem suggested that the A3 use applied for was contrary to the agreement with the landlord and of the application was approved the addition of the cafe would place further pressure on restaurants in the area that were already suffering due to the economic downturn.  He felt that the application would be detrimental to both local residents and businesses.

Mr Luke Karl, in objecting to the application, expressed concern that the installation of the extract duct would create unwelcome smells for the neighbouring properties and he also suggested that there were already sufficient restaurants in the area.

During Members’ discussion, Councillor Cummins referred to conditions 4 and 5 in the report and enquired where the refuse and food waste would be stored.  He added that if the rear garden was to be utilised for refuse storage, wheelie bins would be required to transport it to the collection point.  Councillor Kataria felt that the report addressed all planning considerations and therefore there were no grounds for refusal.  Councillor Hashmi enquired whether Environmental Health could be contacted to ensure that the applicant was storing and disposing of refuse appropriately. 

In reply to the issues raised, the Area Planning Manager advised that the proposed storage area was to the rear area of the floor plan.

The Head of Area Planning acknowledged concerns about smells coming from the proposed extract duct and he stated that any issues could be addressed by Environmental Health, although they were happy with refuse storage and collection arrangements.

Members then agreed to the Head of Area Planning’s suggestion to an additional condition that the applicant provide further details of storage arrangements for waste prior to its collection and an informative.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions and an informative.

The Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, stated that this was a balanced, appropriate application in view of the site’s location.

Councillor Kataria commented that a town centre location for a community centre was unusual.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions, informatives and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environmental Services to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor.

The Head of Area Planning advised that the plan on page 184 of the report was inaccurate and he drew Members’ attention to additional comments in the supplementary information circulated at the meeting.

Councillor Hashmi queried the aspect of the Section 106 Agreement concerning affordable housing.  Councillor Cummins enquired how the affordable housing element of the application would be monitored.

In reply, the Head of Area Planning advised that a £50,000 Section 106 Agreement contribution would be required towards affordable housing, unless an acceptable Affordable Housing Toolkit was submitted showing a return of less than 17.5 per cent.  He advised that the IT software used by the Planning Service automatically flagged up the proportion of affordable housing for any scheme where this use was proposed.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions, informatives, an additional condition 15 and an amendment to informative 1 as set out in the supplementary information and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environmental Services to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor.

The Head of Area Planning drew Members’ attention to theadditional condition 15 and an amendment to informative 1 as set out in the supplementary information circulated at the meeting.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Mistry confirmed that he had been approached by objectors to the application and that he was speaking in his capacity as ward councillor.  He stated that there had been a petition against the scheme with approximately 100 signatures.  Councillor Mistry expressed concern that the application lacked parking provision and that residents would have to rely on obtaining residents permits.  He added that Turton Road was already over parked, with triple parking often occurring, whilst the garden area at the back of the site was also unsuitable.  Councillor Mistry commented that the site’s location on a steep hill would also make access difficult for disabled residents.

During Members’ discussion, Councillor Hashmi expressed concern that there were no disabled parking spaces provided.  Councillor Cummins queried how disabled parking spaces could be provided on-street as mentioned in the report in view that the objectors had stated that the surrounding roads were already over parked.  He also queried the comments in the report in respect of the Landscape Design Team and Urban Design. Councillor McLennon enquired whether the reduction to the Section 106 Agreement was due to the application being re-configured. 

In reply to the issues raised, the Head of Area Planning stated that the Section 106 Agreement contribution had been reduced due to the revised proposals reducing the total number of bedrooms by one.  He advised that if a disabled parking space was provided on-street, this would be at the expense of an existing parking bay.  He advised that the Landscape Design Team and Urban Design comments in the report had not been updated.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions and the addition of an informative reminding the applicant of their obligations to OfCom with regard to inspection and regulation of the FM antenna.

The Head of Area Planning confirmed that the application was SPG compliant.

Councillor Hashmi felt that there were insufficient details in the application to address health issues, in particular in relation to the use of radio waves.  Councillor Cummins enquired if the antenna could be used as a mobile phone mast.

In reply, the Head of Area Planning advised that the radio waves were on a different frequency to mobile masts and that the structure proposed could not be used for mobile phone signals.  However Members agreed to the Head of Area Planning’s suggestion that an informative be included reminding the applicant of their obligations to OfCom with regard to inspection and regulation of the FM antenna.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions, amendments to conditions 4, 7 and 9 and additional conditions as set out in the supplementary information and on the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environmental Services to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor.

The Head of Area Planning introduced the report and confirmed that the application was to redevelop an existing site.  He drew Members’ attention to additional observations, amendments to conditions 4, 7 and 9 and additional conditions as set out in the supplementary information circulated at the meeting.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions and on the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environmental Services to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor.

The Head of Area Planning advised that the application was fully SPG compliant.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64.

None.

None.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Planning Committee was scheduled for Wednesday, 30 June 2010 and that the site visit for this meeting would take place the preceding Saturday, 26 June 2010 at 9.30 am when the coach leaves Brent House.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Planning Committee was scheduled for Wednesday, 30 June 2010 and that the site visit for this meeting would take place the preceding Saturday, 26 June 2010 at 9.30 am when the coach leaves Brent House.