Agenda, decisions and minutes

493 Kenton Road, Harrow, HA3 0UN (Ref. 11/2529)

Councillor Sheth declared that his family owned a property that was some 800 metres away from the application site address.  Although he had no personal or prejudicial interest, he stated that he would refrain from discussion and voting.

201 and 203 Kenton Road, Harrow, HA3 0HD (Ref. 11/2187)

Councillor Sheth declared that he had dined at the restaurant with his family but that as he had no personal or prejudicial interest.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 23 November 2011 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

In clarifying the issues raised at the site visit, Rachel McConnell (Area Planning Manager) stated that the proposed ground level would be similar to the original ground level where it adjoined the gardens of properties in Gay Close and Kenneth Crescent. She continued that the site had always been at a higher level than the Gay Close gardens.  She added that the tree adjacent to the Kenneth Crescent and Gay Close boundaries was intended to be retained but if it died, it would be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 (two new trees to one lost tree).  She advised the Committee that Building Control were seeking a land drain to be provided for the garden area in order to assist drainage. 

In respect of the concerns expressed by residents of Gay Close on overlooking, Rachel McConnell stated that the closest point between habitable room windows of 20m complied with the standards within SPG17 and that no harm would arise from loss of privacy as amplified in the Planning Inspector's decision. She noted the residents' disagreement on the height of the fence and added that the height (between 2m and 2.8m) was a reflection of the general consensus of residents.  In respect of the revised plans submitted by the applicant which showed the removal of the first floor rear projecting balconies and landscape plans, she suggested an amendment to condition 2 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.

Mr Phillip Jeffrey objecting on behalf of a resident of Gay Close stated that as Gay Close was below the levels of the proposed development it would create an overbearing aspect to the residents.  He suggested that the following measures to ameliorate the impact: an increase of the fence height to 3.4m; proposed landscaping should be designed in conjunction with the residents of Gay Close.

Mr Sean McDonagh, the applicant's agent, stated that the proposed development which incorporated additional landscaping was in accordance with existing planning guidance and policies.  He continued that although the applicants were willing to open negotiations with residents on the height of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager set out the proposal and officers' reasons for recommending refusal as set out in the main report.

Mr Anand Suchak, in objecting to the proposed change of use stated that the proposal would be inappropriately located as it would be within an area which was fully residential and close to the local school.  He added that existing parking facilities were inadequate and would not be able to support the proposal.  In conclusion, Mr Anand re-affirmed his support for officers' reasons for recommending refusal.

Mr William Ellis, an objector echoed similar sentiments and added that the applicant had not assessed desirability of the proposal within a residential area and its adverse impact on local residents.

Mr Neil Taylor, the applicant stated that the restaurant would be a family run business which would not sell alcohol.  He added that demand for parking would be limited as it would involve between 5-6 cars to the premises.  He continued that noise from passing traffic would overcome the level of noise at the site.  Mr Taylor noted that as the site had been vacant for some time his proposal would enhance the appearance and economic activity of the area.  He went on to assure members that strict identity (ID) requirement would be put in place to limit any possible impact on residents.

Note: Councillor Sheth, having declared an interest in this application did not take part in the voting or discussion.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager stated measures had been taken to safeguard the amenities of local residents by ensuring that appropriate access arrangements were provided and that both premises operated within their prescribed hours.  With that in view, she drew members' attention to an amendment in condition 6 and an additional informative as set out in the tabled supplementary report.

Mr Paul Shepherd objecting on behalf of his mother, an adjoining resident, stated that the proposed change of use would lead to an unacceptable level of noise and parking problems particularly as both 201 and 203 would be used as banqueting facilities of more than 80 people.  He added that due to lack of designated smoking area, smokers were likely to congregate outside of the premises, thus destroying the quite enjoyment of residential amenity.

In response to questions about licensing the legal representative clarified that the applicant could vary the hours of operation when he submitted a separate application to the Licensing Sub-Committee under the Licensing Act 2003.

a)         Grant Planning Permission, subject to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report, 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 Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.

Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager, informed members that the applicant had submitted revised plans which altered the elevations and reduced the visual bulk of the building.  In addition, a revised site layout plan had been received which included the provision of 6 "Sheffield" style cycle stands in the forecourt, 2 demarcated disabled parking bays within the car park, space for three 240 litre bins on the north elevation towards the rear of the building and indicative alterations to the boundary landscaping of the site.  She therefore recommended an amendment to condition 2 as set out in the tabled supplementary report and removal of condition 5. In addition, she advised that condition 4, 7 & 8 be amended as acceptable details had now been submitted relating to the disabled bays, cycle parking and refuse provision.

Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning recommended an additional condition for self-closing doors as a further measure to safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupants if the applicant was to install amplified music.

Grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Legal and Procurement Service.

At the start of the meeting Councillor Cummins moved an amendment for the application to be deferred for a site visit to enable members to assess the impact of the proposed development.  This was put to the vote and declared carried.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.

Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager corrected that the recommendation to delegate authority to agree the exact terms of the s106 should be to the Head of Area Planning instead of the Director of Environmental Services.  He also reported on minor amendments by the applicant which had resulted in 133 parking spaces (a reduction of 7 spaces) and additional landscaping.

Grant Consent, subject to the referral of the application to the Mayor of London in accordance with part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, and subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and procurement.

If the legal agreement had not been entered into, or the Mayor of London remains unsatisfied with the application by the agreed Planning Performance Agreement expiry date, which at the time of writing this report is XXXXX, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.

Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager addressed the following issues raised at the site visit by members and interested parties:

Health and education provision:

The Section 106 legal agreement would secure £1.1m towards secondary school provision and £0.9m towards primary school provision and although no additional nursery provision was proposed within the scheme, nursery accommodation was being provided at West Twyford Primary School.  Space for a GP surgery had been provided on the ground floor of Crystal House as part of the first residential phase although it still remained vacant since its construction and despite marketing.

Over concentration of social housing:

The proportion of social housing being proposed would be approximately 25%, half the 50% level required by policy, subject to viability. He clarified that whilst dispersing social housing around a site (‘pepper potting’) may be considered preferable in terms of social integration, housing associations continued to resist it due to the practicalities of delivery, management and affordability.

Energy Centre Location:

After further consultation with the Council’s Environmental Health team the Area Planning Manager suggested an additional condition as set out in the tabled supplementary report be added.  The condition sought further safeguards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager, corrected that the recommendation was for a refusal rather than approval as published on the Council's website. He continued that since the report was written the applicant had submitted a number of amendments which sought to overcome the reasons for recommending refusal including compliance with SPG17. With that in view, Neil McClellan requested a deferral to allow officers more time to consider the scheme and seek further amendments if necessary.

Members accepted the recommendation for deferral.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager referred to corrections in the report for which he recommended an amendment to condition 2.  He also referred to an additional objection from a local resident but which raised no anew issues. 

Pre-meeting

Members briefly discussed the merits of the recently introduced arrangements for pre-meeting which took place at Brent House at 2:30pm on the day before the meeting.  Members expressed a preference to revert to the previous arrangement for pre-meeting on the day of the meeting but at an earlier start time of 5:30pm.