Agenda item
2A Preston Waye & 283-287 odd, Preston Road, Harrow, HA3 (Ref. 11/1042)
Decision:
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 Director of Legal and Procurement.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of 4 dwellinghouses and erection of a two/three storey building to provide 17 x self-contained flats (6 x 1-bedroom, 7 x 2-bedroom and 4 x 3-bedroom) with basement car park with vehicular access from Preston Waye and associated landscaping |
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement, informatives and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
|
Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning introduced this report. With reference to the tabled supplementary, he informed members about additional letters of objections had been received which chiefly reiterated issues that had been addressed in the main report. In responding to new issues raised Steve Weeks clarified that the proposal would overlap with the previous approval to the rear of No. 281 Preston Road but a condition on landscaping required implementation in full accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the residential units. He continued that the toolkit submitted with the application and based on current values and build costs demonstrated that it was not viable to provide affordable housing. However, an independent revised financial toolkit would be required once actual build costs were available in order to reassess the provision of affordable housing within the development. In respect of issues raised on traffic and access, the Head of Area Planning added that the Council's Transportation Officer had assessed the information and plans provided and was satisfied that the servicing arrangement would be acceptable without a significant impact on the surrounding highway network.
The Head of Area Planning advised members that individual consultation letters had been sent to local residents and groups which had produced a range of responses that were covered in the report. However, the expiry period for the site notices would expire after 14 July, and hence, if the Committee agreed the recommendation, they were being asked to delegate consideration of these. He reported that on the advice of the Director of Legal and Procurement, a right of vehicular access over the proposed car park access road into any redevelopment of 281 Preston Road needed to be secured through the Section 106 agreement rather than by Condition 10. He added that the applicant had confirmed that they would accept a clause in the agreement in accordance with this requirement.
Mr William Kemp, Chair of Preston Amenities Protection Association (PAPA) in objecting to the proposed development stated that due to its size, siting and design the proposed development would be out of character with the surroundings. He continued that with a potential for a substantial increase in population, the proposal would represent an unattractive block on the landscape of the area and urged members to refuse the application. In response to the Chair’s query Mr Kemp stated that the conversions in Jubilee Court and Park Place to which the Chair referred were both well away from the application site.
Mr David Pearson objected to the proposed development on grounds of traffic, loss of security, size and massing. He stated that the creation of a car park entrance would require a road layout to accommodate motorists and pedestrians within a site with inadequate turning room. He continued that in the absence of measures like fencing and gating, the demolition of No. 2 Preston Waye would lead to loss of security. Mr Pearson referred to the planning Inspector’s report to support his claim that the proposal would be out of context and character with the area.
Mr Fred Akuffo the applicant’s architect stated that the issues that were raised by the Planning Inspector including overlooking, overshadowing, access and refuse recycling arrangement had been discussed with officers and addressed. He continued that further to that the scheme had benefited from an amended been amended an amended design had been submitted that complied with relevant policies and guidance. Mr Akuffo urged members to endorse officers’ recommendation for approval subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.
During debate, Councillor RS Patel observed that the report did not illuminate on refuse recycling and bin enclosure. Councillor Kabir noted that the site notices had not expired and clarified that members were being asked to delegate consideration of any additional substantial objections received after a decision had been made by the Committee. Councillor Hashmi also sought a clarification on the financial contribution for the Section 106 agreement.
In responding to the issues raised above, the Head of Area Planning stated that in order to deal with substantive additional objections which may be received after the meeting, he had recommended the grant of delegated authority. He undertook to seek further advice on the level of financial contribution. In response to a question from the Chair, he advised members that trees lost as a result of the proposal would be replaced with 19 trees on site. In reiterating the recommendation he recommended a further condition to be added on refuse recycling.
DECISION: Granted delegated authority to the Head of Area Planning to grant planning permission subject to a section 106 agreement as recommended and an additional condition on refuse recycling arrangement and to consider further objections received up to the expiry of the site notice consultation if it is considered appropriate. |
Supporting documents: