Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] , can I welcome you to the main meeting of the planning committee. Can I ask members to introduce themselves? I gather that Councillor Wagman's going to be a few minutes late. So, if I may, I'll take the liberty to, I think, Councillor Ali, you've got a little touch of flu, so you're sitting at that end. But if you care to introduce yourself and we'll work around this way.

[INAUDIBLE] From Green Hill Ward, the planning committee for the last two years. Thank you. Councillor Simon Brown, I'm here tonight reserving for Councillor Asard. [BLANKAUDIO] [FOREIGN] I'm Councillor Marilyn Ashton, deputy leader of the council. I'm chairman of the planning committee. [BLANKAUDIO] Councillor Christopher Baxter, North Harrow Ward, and I'm a member of the planning committee. Councillor Samir Samaria, representing Kenton East Ward. [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you, right. Now, reserve, yes, yes. We shall go by the members microphones and timing. And please note that this meeting has been video and audio recorded and will be available to watch or listen on the website. Now, there's been a little bit of an omission on the agenda, which I failed to spot. And I don't think I was the only one. And that is that we need to, for this new municipal year, elect a vice chairman. So without further ado, I'd like to propose that Councillor Chris Baxter is the vice chairman. Do I have a seconder? Chair, I'd like to second that position. Any other proposals? No. >> Okay. So can we put that to the vote? All those in favor of Councillor Chris Baxter being the vice chairman? Yes, that's very good. That's unanimous, thank you, that's very nice of you. Right, that's out the way. So we've got a reserve member and I can see Councillor Brown, you're here. On behalf of Councillor Asadi is here, which doesn't make any sense. But anyway, that's fine, whatever. I've been notified that Councillor Matthew Gooden-Freeman was going to be back benching, but unfortunately he's rather tied up with the general election announcement and he won't be able to come. And I know that Councillor Rashmi Kallu is back benching for agenda item 201. And there you are on screen, okay, right, okay, that's fine. And Councillor Asad, I mean, it's up to you, but why didn't you just go on the committee tonight? Sorry. Because I will be openly objecting to the planning application that is being proposed in Rocks Earth Ward. So therefore I would like to back bench on the committee, yeah. You can object to it as a member of the committee, which you can't do, is predetermine it. I mean, it's up to you, but really, because that way you see if you're on the committee, you're not limited for time, for four minutes, and you've got a vote. And I don't, it's up to you, but- I just thought that politically it would be better for me to back bench, to be able to openly make the case against. I thought that because I had already made my mind up on the application, that it wouldn't be right to sit on the committee. I understand that, it's very honest of you to put it that way, because there's nothing wrong with having a predisposition, but I understand. Okay, good, right, declarations of interest. Well, I have a disclosable pecuniary interest in the last agenda item, and that is agenda item 206, which is where I live, okay? I don't think you could get much more of a disclosable pecuniary interest than that. So although my husband, who's also a Councillor by the way, is the applicant, I shall be leaving the room and taking no part in that agenda item. And Councillor Baxter will take the chair. And then I'll come back after that and close the meeting. Yeah, yeah, all right, Simon, I know. Here we are, here's Councillor Wagman, just in time. I thought if I talk a lot, I'll give you a bit. They call it filibuster, don't they? Yeah, it's all right. No, I know, I know, it's all right. No, it's not your fault. All right, any other declarations of interest? Councillor Baxter. Yeah, just out of an abundance, of course, I declare a non-pecuniary interest as that item relates to a Councillor in the Authority, another Councillor. Yes, just for Councillor Wagman's benefit, I've declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda item 206 because I live there. And I suppose I'm right in saying that everybody really that knows me has probably got a non-pecuniary interest, including Labour councillors. I mean, we all know each other, but that doesn't mean you all have to go running outside. It just means that I think that's right. Yes, of course, but I think we could probably, if that's all right with everybody, that everybody that knows who I am probably has a non-pecuniary interest. Okay, good, that's out the way. Now, can we say that the minutes are a correct record of the last meeting? Good, that's good. Public questions, there are none. Any petitions? No? No, okay. No deputations, references from Council. And can we accept the addendum, please? Yes, okay, luckily there wasn't much on it tonight, it was really good. So, we've got representations tonight for the agenda item 201. And do I have the name of the... Oh, yes, I do, it's down here. We have an objector, Mr Ian Randall, and also Mr Jason Seed as the agent to respond to that. So, could I ask the officers, please, without further ado, to present that application? We did do a site visit, but nonetheless, I think for completeness, if you could present it again so we can refresh ourselves. Thank you. Okay, so agenda item 201 for 40A Summerville Road and 1 Carlisle Avenue. So, the two properties relate to a pair of semi-detached bungalows located at the junction of Summerville Road and Carlisle Avenue. As you can see in the image there, there's a high quantum of landscaping to the front of the site. To the west of the site, there's 42A and 42 Summerville Road, those properties are bungalows. I believe someone's going to speak in relation to 42, I think. Then, further up the road, sorry, I don't know if I can offer up this, but just here, this is number 3 Carlisle Avenue, and that's a two-storey building. Further along the road, the properties become two-storey buildings. So, there is a bit of a mix of property styles, so some bungalows, some two-storey buildings. The proposal itself is referenced there, so it's for a redevelopment of the site, demolition of the two bungalows, and erection of a building, a two-storey building, which comprises six self-contained flats, four two-beds, and two three-bed units. There are changes to landscaping, boundary treatment, car parking, cycle parking, bins, cycle stores, a total of four car parking spaces on site, including one disabled parking space. And I think it's two short-stage cycle spaces and 12 long-stay spaces. So, just some images of the site, so you can get some of the context. I mean, you can see, you probably, as you've made the site, you can probably see kind of a lot of the site from the street. I mean, it is quite a prominent junction, but the main buildings are well set back from the pavement and main highways. Some other views, this is the, there's an existing vehicle access into the, I think it's 1 Carlisle Avenue there, that's going to be retained. Just some images of the content, that's number three there. Some of that's a view of the site from, I think the one on the opposite road. Just some views of some other properties along the road, that's one and three Balmoral Road. Design of the proposal has taken inspiration from the design of this building, as well as some others. And here's a view of 42 and 42A, some of Old Road, that just sit adjacent to the site. Some existing floor plans, the properties have been extended to some degree. But yeah, I mean, it's just domestic extensions, conservatories, and one of them, and a rear extension on the other. I think they have some outbuildings. So this application follows the refusal of a previous application on the site, which proposes development of a much greater scale. So this application has been refused, it's currently with the planning inspector, it's not been determined yet, but we're waiting to hear back, really. But yeah, obviously we have to proceed with this application, irrespective. So yeah, you can see that the design of the building, it almost had three segments. So it kind of had a face fronting each of the roads, so you can see the approach there. We were concerned with the overall scale of the development, and we had some... Sorry, I can go back to the previous slide. We were concerned with the overall scale of the development, and we had concerns over the principle of development, based on applying our garden land SPT, based on the increases in footprint, and just general scale, and not being proportionate, and loss of landscaping, and just being an overdevelopment of the site based on what was presented there. So I'll now show you the current scheme. Sorry, these are some of the elevations from the previous scheme, but I think you could gather that. This is the proposed scheme now, so you can see that it's been substantially reduced. They've almost removed one large segment of development. So it now appears akin to a pair of semi-detached buildings, really, on the road. So you've got, yeah, there's the car parking there, you've got some cycle parking, and the cycle maintenance store there, bin storage as well. And just moving on, so you can just see some of the layout. So each unit has a private terrace, in the case of ground floor units, and the upper floor units have private balconies. There is communal immunity space around the perimeter of the site, really. So just an indication of some of the elevations. So they've tried to go with a traditional design, in many respects, with replicating many of the features that are prevalent along the road, with the gables, the hip roofs, and trying to tie it into the surrounding street context. Just a section of the building, and the existing and proposed. These are some details on the bin cycle storage. I mean, it's just pretty standard enclosures, really, for what you'd expect for a scheme of this scale. Some CGI drawings showing what the proposed building would appear, or what it would look like across various portions of the street scene. So yeah, this is the view from Somerville Road, another one along Somerville Road. View from Balmoral Road, kind of adjacent to where those two buildings that showed earlier were, where they've gotten some inspiration from. Another view, so this is from Balmoral Road, I think. Yeah, and then Carlisle Avenue there. And then this is a CGI drawing of a view of the building from the rear garden of 42 Somerville Road, just to give an indication of the impact. Earlier today we received an objection by email that was addressed to the Labour councillors, but it ended up finding its way to us. The matters that they raised are set out over here. So I mean, it's all stuff that was flagged anyway by other objectors in relation to the main application, but we thought we'd declare it because of how late we received it. We didn't have the chance to report it via an addendum. Same thing happened in relation to a number of other objections that we've realised late on, that they were received yesterday, well, the vast majority of them yesterday and weren't in the evening on Monday. So we didn't have the opportunity to report them via the addendum, but we've set out the concerns raised. And other than the point about a loss of value to surrounding properties, which is not material planning consideration anyway, all of the matters have been considered anyway in the committee report and there's quite a lot of detail in respect to each of that. I think it was just general concerns that had already been flagged by other residents anyway. Just to conclude, we believe that the application is acceptable and balanced and we recommend for the committee to approve the application. Thank you very much, Akshay, that's good. Anyone got any questions for Akshay? Yes, Councillor Parro. A few questions actually, Chair. On 6.4.4, the storage doesn't sort of meet the standards, so are you happy with that? So in the internal standards, right, yeah. So I think there's a bit of a shortfall, but as you can see, the units themselves exceed the GIA, the minimum GIA standards anyway. So we feel that they could, whilst they haven't provided the built-in storage, they can make up for it elsewhere anyway. And that's just guidance, really. On page 20, on the history and the planning history, the previous application, P232423, did it go to the committee or was it a delegated decision? They refused a case that we refused. Yeah, it wasn't called in. Yeah, I mean, it was refused and then it was appealed. Okay, so it's obviously delegated refusal, basically. Yeah. Nobody called in. And in terms of the distance from the flank wall of number 42, I believe it's just over 12 metres. Yeah, I think we sent an email over to you just to confirm this, but I think, yeah, I've taken it from the boundary, so from the flank wall of the proposed development to the boundary. I mean, it varies, obviously, based on what part of the building you're looking at, but it's around 12.45 to around 12.56, up to the boundary. Yeah, that's what we've taken it to on the measurements. Yeah, we've measured. So when we did the site, does it look like it's hitting you on your highs when you go out in the garden of number 42? And the other question I have is, you know, the window of number 42, which we saw in the middle room, I think I did ask during the briefing. Obviously, it is a protected window. Yeah, I mean, that's the only window for that. Yeah, I mean, we obviously, if you look at the committee, we obviously recognise that that's a habitable room window, but we have to look at the degree of impact, looking at what the existing situation is and then looking at what the impact would be. Because obviously, there's going to be an increased impact with an additional story. But it's quite well, we felt it's quite well set away from the boundary. And then again, the existing situation is you've got a fence, so there would be some degree of existing impact anyway. I think we set that out in paragraph 6.55. The fence can be removed, not the building. Even though the fence is there. Yeah, I mean, obviously, you'd get more sense of views because it's of a greater scale, but it's with a setback and stuff. And you can see that kind of relationship is all across the road with the two storey buildings and bungalows. I mean, if you look on the other side of 42 and 42A, there's two storey buildings. So, yeah, I mean, it's we yeah, we would look at the impact. And I think if you if I go back to sort of get up the slide again. So, yeah, I just wanted to show you briefly the. So, as you can see in this image here, I mean, they've they've said it they've said it so it doesn't protrude. I mean, just in terms of impact on the garden, they've said it so it protrudes roughly parallel with with that neighbour and it doesn't kind of protrude into into their garden. I mean, obviously, there is going to be views from that window, but there are. Yeah, I mean, at ground floor level, the fence would screen it similar similarly to what what the existing impact is. And then at first floor level, there it is. It is quite well set back anyway. So and I think there is there an elevation. I don't know if it shows it in context. Yeah. Yeah. So that's the yeah. The bottom left is the kind of view of the site. And then you can see the three CGI drawing that was sent. That's from the garden. But if you're taking it the window, it would be somewhere further along. So, yeah, because what I observed, I mean, I'm not an expert, but whenever there's a there are properties on the corner floor, they're normally the back garden, normally faces the side walls of the other properties. So there's more distance between the wall and the garden here. They're starting just within 12 metres. So it's literally hitting you straight as soon as you see outside the window. You know, I'm saying the corner properties, normally the doors are facing towards the corner and the gardens are at the back, facing the back side gardens of the other properties. The existing I don't know if I've got drawing here, but I think it's the existing site plan. Yeah. As you can see, sorry, it's a bit difficult to see, but there's there's an extension here, the back of this property and an extension in the back of this one here. I mean, that's closer to the boundary than than the than the proposed building. Obviously, it's it's it's yeah, it's a bungalow. Obviously, it's not. Yeah. Yeah. I believe that bungalows were created after other houses were built in. They were brought in later on. And the reason why they were bungalows, they didn't want to affect number 42, I believe, because the height does matter for number 42. You mean in terms of the side facing elevation, you mean? Yeah. I mean, we obviously acknowledge that there's going to be some impact, but we have to look at the degree of that and and yet look at the the existing outlook and stuff. That's that's afforded and we just feel that it would be difficult to justify refusal on the basis of of the view with this with the setback that's that's been provided from the boundary. I mean, it's it's it's it's been carefully designed to limit that impact as far as far as possible really. So, you know, one of the objection on the previous application was impact on number 42. I think it's just the number two of the refusal. Yeah, I think that I believe that still applies to some extent. It's not gone completely. Yeah. I mean, the problem is, is the so let me go back. I'll get the again. It's so it's number three. Actually, it's number three. Yeah. It's excessive, high scale, proximate siding in relation to the rear garden of of this neighboring property. If you're looking at this development here, you've they had this this third segment here, which sat forward, but forward of the rear facade of of that that neighbor. So the impact was was a lot greater there. And if you're looking at the reason we've set, we've specific specifically in relation to the rear garden of that neighbor. So as you can see, that's the previous one. You can see the boundary there. And then looking again at the the revised scheme, you can see that it's been set level. Yeah. Yeah. So we feel that's been overcome just simply through the reduction in the overall scale and kind of the orientation of the new development. Do you know the actual height of the roof from, you know, in terms of meters of what height we're going to get now compared to what we got? I can double check for you and have a look. I might have to come back to you on that. That's OK. Yeah. I've got a question. But in fact, she's busy trying to calculate perhaps all I can answer it in the previous reason for refusal. Was it an in principle reason for refusal? Was it an overarching no, we don't want flats, you know, out of keeping? Or was it specifics that we refused on? Thank you, chair. It wasn't an in principle reason for refusal. It was it was related to specifics of the proposal before the council at that time. We believe that those issues have been overcome with this new publication. So it was garden grabbing the balconies, the scale, you know, the fact that it was it was much more development and overdevelopment effectively, but not we don't want flats, only houses or bungalows. Not not that OK. We don't I mean, we don't have the result of the appeal decision, which is a pity, because that would be quite informative. But, you know, we could we could be waiting another number of months for that to come through. It's hard to tell with the inspector. So anyway. All right. That's my any other questions? That's my question. No. All right. Well, in that case, without further ado, we've got a representation. So if I could call on Mr. Ian Randall to come to the microphone and switch it on so that you get a red light. That's it. And Mr. Randall, you've got three minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much. I say my name's Ian Randall. My wife owns the bungalow 42 Somerville Road, which is the property that probably is most impacted by this this proposal. There's a couple of things I want to talk about on this. The first of all, first off is the process. We were never made aware on. We were certainly not made aware of the initial application for the for the development. We're not aware of any letters being sent out for the second this application for the development. We didn't see any. Our neighbors in 42A said they never saw any either. The notice that went up on the lamppost, we believe, was posted after the date the objection should be posted or sent into into the for the planning application. And in addition, when it was first put onto the Web site, it was posted as a development within 42 within Somerville Road. But Carlisle Avenue wasn't even mentioned in the on the Harrow online planning portal. I appreciate they're all little small bits, but it does sort of lead us to feel that this is all being done a little bit behind people's backs. I know there is process, but it's made it feel to us as if it's difficult for us to actually put in our objections. Moving on to the property itself. Yes, it is two story. I would take issue with the gentleman that's explained this and saying that all the other properties, there are four bungalows currently, but there are all the other properties are houses, not flats, and they may be a two story, but it is still flats rather than houses, which is the predominant buildings within the old residents within the within the area. It's a definitely a substantially bigger footprint than it currently is at the moment, which I think needs to be taken into account. As I said, 42 Somerville Road bears the biggest brunt of the impact on this development. And all of the subsidiary buildings, namely the cycle units and the cycle storage, the cycle maintenance and the bins are all placed next to our property. That affords easier access for people to gain access to our back garden. It provides a greater increase of smells and making it far less palatable for us to for the use of our garden, which we don't think is right. The reality is the number of properties they've got are going to we're going to be needing a substantial number of bins. This is not just one and two bins for a house or a bungalow, we're probably talking a dozen bins all told, which will create issues we feel on the environment in the local area. It also impacts the privacy. I think people here have already spoken about privacy and how it will impact on our property. We're not particularly comfortable with CGI drawings of that, but that is something that we are not happy with. Just to gently remind you, you actually have three minutes, so if you could just wind up as quickly as you know, because your preamble about process took up most of it. OK, the last thing I wanted to mention was that we were aware of a traffic report that somebody's done, which we find a little bit misleading and primarily because it's using 2011 data. The bottom line of this is there's six properties and there's only four car parking spaces. And that is only going to lead to more cars on what is already hugely congested, two sets of roads. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Before I call on the agent, Jason Seed, if I could just ask a quick question. Did we actually notify? Because it's rather important. I just want to make sure that we did, because I'm not saying I'm not saying that you've got the letter. I just want to check our records because occasionally these things don't work. Yeah, I mean, we noticed when the application was validated that the site address wasn't correct. It only referred to Somerville Road. So we actually went out of the way to amend that and post a new site notice with the correct address. And we re-consulted neighbours on the basis of the fact that the initial address wasn't correct. And we consulted all, looking at our records online, it says we consulted 42A and 3, all the adjoining properties, which legally that's who we were required to consult. And I looked at my phone and I could see that the site notice was posted on the 4th of March 2024. I can't say what happened to it, whether people have seen it, but as a requirement, we went to post a site notice and it was there and we have record that we posted it on that date. And that was with the correct description. So we did, yeah, we feel that, yeah, fine, there were some issues initially with some of the details and who has been consulted. But we went out of our way to try and address that by re-consulting neighbours and fixing the issue with the description. So we feel that we've done all that we can in terms of... And that's for this current one, the previous one. Yeah, this one. So, yeah, OK. And the previous one, we also must have consulted on as well. Yeah, I mean, I think we obviously were aware that we've moved over to a different IT system. I think the previous one was with the older system, so things might have been slightly different. But yeah, I don't know the full extent because it's been a while since I've looked at the previous one. But we ordinarily would consult adjoining neighbours as part of the previous one. Yeah, ordinarily, yes. But I think it's important that we clear that up before I ask Mr Seed to speak. Anyway, thank you very much, actually, for that. You know, I think it was unfortunate that we got the address wrong, actually. But nevertheless, you know, our records are fairly clear what we did, and I don't know what happened. Yeah, OK. Well, I mean, there's been quite a bit of time. We're in May now, and it hasn't been determined yet, and you've just spoken. So we understand your objections very well. OK, Mr Seed, if you care to take the microphone, and you've also got just over three minutes. Thank you, Chair, and good evening, members. As detailed by the officer, planning permission is sought for the demolition of two dwellings on the site and the construction of six self-contained flats. The proposed development also includes provision of landscaping, vehicle and cycle parking, and storage for waste and recycling. The submission follows an application for planning permission for a larger scheme comprising eight flats, which was refused in September of last year. The application was refused for the four reasons as detailed in the officer's report. Although, in summary, these related to a conflict with the requirements of the Council's Garden and Land Development SPD, the overall scale and mass of the development, and the impact of the proposal on the rear garden of number 42 Summerville Road. There was also concerns regarding the prominence and usability of the proposed amenity spaces. In response to this refusal, the external footprint of the proposal has been significantly reduced to bring its 17.1 square metres below the threshold that the authority stated would be acceptable at the pre-application stage, thereby complying with the requirements of the aforementioned SPD and, by extension, Policy CS1B of the Council's core strategy. In reducing the scale of the development, this has resulted in a natural reduction in the bulk, mass, footprint and site coverage of the proposals, thereby addressing the constituent parts of the second reason for refusal. The current scheme removes the wing that was previously sited to the north of the site. This has significantly reduced the impression of the development when viewed from the rear garden of number 42 Summerville Road. The balcony and terrace front in Summerville Road has now been removed from the proposals and a communal amenity area that was previously proposed has also been removed from the scheme. The case officers detailed their reasons for recommending approval, considering that the character and appearance of the development is acceptable, that it would provide good quality accommodation within the borough whilst not unduly impacting upon highway safety or residential amenity. These are particularly important considerations within the context of the previous deferral and consultation comments that have been provided. As with the previous proposals, which were a greater number of units than the current proposals, both the case officer and the transportation team considered the development to be acceptable in respect of highway safety and parking provision. These conclusions are supported by those contained within the Transport Technical Note that was provided in support of the application. Four off-street parking spaces are proposed, which would accord with the relevant London Plan standards. An additional on-street parking space would also be provided as a result of the removal of the existing vehicle crossover positioned on Summerville Road. Whilst the impacts upon neighbouring fenestration did not constitute a reason for refusal within the previous application, the case officers confirmed that the development would not result in unacceptable impacts upon number 42 Summerville Road when assessed against the council's 45 degree code. Additionally, the first application was supported by a daylight assessment which tested the proposal's impacts upon neighbouring habitable windows against the target requirements of BIE guidance, concluding that the development would result in no significant adverse material effects. It is considered that the revised proposals have overcome all of the previous reasons for refusal and now fully comply with the relevant planning policy requirement. As such, we respectfully request that planning permission is granted, subject to the imposition of the conditions recommended within the officer's report and any further conditions which members consider necessary to make the development accessible in planning terms. Thank you. Yes, thank you very much. Right, so now if I could ask Councillor Assad to backbench and Councillor Assad, you've got four minutes. Thank you very much, Chair. I'm here to represent my constituents in Roxeth and whilst I have limited time, I want to outline a few general comments about the principle of turning homes into flats. For as long as I have been a Councillor on this council, I have had an issue with the increased number of flats that are being built in Harrow of considerable small size, rented out at a high market rate to people from outside of Harrow. It's changing the demographics of my home town. It is pushing working class communities out of this borough. Whilst a member of planning at times, I have not been able to vote against those proposals based on legal issues or the demand in housing, but I find it frustrating that homes are consistently being turned into flats and families as big as eight or nine are being cramped into them. I oppose that on principle. Affordable housing is not affordable to many people and building tiny flats across the borough is not helping the housing issue. Our communities deserve to live in housing that is sufficient enough for their families not cramped into small spaces. They deserve gardens and a bedroom for each of their children to have. But my specific concerns with this planning application are as follows. One, the majority of homes on Somerville Road in Carlisle and the surrounding area are homes with families. Building flats in this area would be out of place with the makeup of the area, the look and the feel and would encourage more applications for homes to be turned into flats. I reject this out of principle. Two, proper consultation has not been carried out. The initial consultation was with three properties. I believe that this is insufficient. As stated already, the wrong address was used when the application went live and the majority of the neighbors on Somerville did not know about this. This is not just about 42 Somerville. This is about all of the neighbors on that side of the road. How do I know this? Because my colleagues and I have been canvassing views in Somerville Road, Carlisle and the surrounding area. The number of responses we have received number from 25 or more, some of them by post, which we have not been able to access because they are in our office. All of them are objections. Many of them have written to us saying that they never knew about these proposals and that the council never informed them. They never saw any lamppost sign. And if they did, the letter posted was very, very small. It seems that there's a deliberate attempt not to consult with the majority of neighbors on that road. Second, traffic. The pictures used to make the case in this planning application is not during peak traffic times. And I believe that it will cause severe restrict parking restrictions on site to problems with highway safety and diminish the convenience of pedestrian and cyclists. I believe that we should reject this planning application, not just because 42 Somerville, their security is at risk in this, their privacy is at risk. We haven't consulted properly on it. And the traffic report is outdated. It's from 2011. And I think that we should be using an updated data set to make any case for this type of proposal. The other is that lastly, I want to say that I think that this proposed development is detrimental to the privacy and amenity of the neighboring occupiers, contrary to policy DM one of the Harrow Development Management Policies. And I think it would result in inappropriate onsite parking provisions and would create significant on on street parking problems, cause highway safety and diminish the convenience of pedestrian and cyclists in contribution with policy DM 42 of Harrow Development Management Policies. I just want to say that I really think that we did not consult properly on this and that lots of the constituents in on Somerville Road Carlisle did not know about this. And that's why they are writing to us, objecting to this application. And if we had consulted properly, maybe we could have come to some type of other kind of agreement. Thank you. OK, I mean, obviously, we normally would only have one backbencher, but, you know, we don't mind. We've got time. So, Councillor Callaway, if you could try and be as brief as possible, please. Thank you. You've got four minutes maximum. Thank you. I'll be as brief as I possibly can be, because I'm echoing much of what my colleague, Councillor O'Souza and our residents from Somerville and Carlisle have mentioned in speaking for the refusal of this application. So we, as I've mentioned, we've received 20 signatures so far, numerous complaints, specifically about the lack of consultations. Sorry about my granularies. Many in relation to parking. So there's currently no control parking zones in this area, but nearby schooling at Elge Leed, a very busy high street on North Belt Road, a very well utilised railway station at North Belt Park. I don't want there to be control parking in this area. And I think that this might set a need for it in the future as more parking spaces become scarce and more and more people try to fit along Somerville Road and Carlisle. Not all of the houses in Somerville have driveways. In terms of character, I believe it's out of keeping with character in the area of a number of the houses. I believe this sets a danger precedent for the road. How many more flats would be built here in the future? There are not many flats on this road. And I think that the previous refusal was properly determined. And I don't doubt that this would be the last time that this application returns, whether approved or refused. I think there'll be relentless with these. I think there's a reason it will develop in scale and I think it will come back. So just leaving on that, I think this approval sets a precedent. And that is why there is a lot of strong feeling from our residents and from councillors on this. So, yes, thank you. Thank you very much and thank you for your brevity. Right, OK, so now we're going to go on to comments. And I can see Councillor Sumeria has your hands up. I just wanted to clarify something about the parking. Is that something to do with the London Plan and what the Mayor has imposed? Because I know he's trying to reduce the number of parking spots per development. Can you just clarify that? So London Plan car parking standards are applied as a maximum and the guidance in the London Plan suggests you should have a maximum based on your P-Tel and the size of the unit. You just kind of add up based on that and the number of units. You look at how many maximum car parking spaces are appropriate for the development of the scale. And I think it's it's five in terms of applying the actual London Plan standards, but they provided four, which it's less than that. But there is there a maximum standard. They're not a minimum standard. So it's the opposite of cycle parking, which is minimum standard. So it doesn't conflict with with London Plan standards. In fact, it's along with that. And also, if I had a pound for every single time I wanted to refuse something on parking and couldn't because of the London Plan, be quite well off. But unfortunately, I mean, you know, we are where we are. We have to conform with the London Plan. I disagree with it, actually. But unfortunately, we don't control what the mayor of London wants to do. Councillor Parrik. Yes. Thank you very much. Couple of points we just came up around because of the comments from the councilors and the applicant. There was a quite concern about the placement of the bins near the boundary of the number 42. Would it be properly hidden? How is it going to be? Yeah, I think we've addressed that in the report, so I'm just trying to find. I think it's I think it's in the residential community section in relation to 42. I think we do provide some assessment on that, I think from. Yeah, I think it's. Sorry, just find the OK. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. So I think we we felt obviously it is set and it's adjacent to that boundary and it's not ideal for residents of 42. But it's it's based on the height of the the outbuildings. I think there's there's three cycle stores and then there's a bit of a bin store cycle store and then a cycle maintenance shed, I believe, from what I can remember. But yeah, the height of them isn't kind of too excessive for the structure of that size. I mean, they're kind of our buildings around that boundary as existing, and it's not really going to be too dissimilar to that. Can I sorry to interrupt? I'm just trying to be helpful. Probably not knowing me. But if you wouldn't mind just getting the plans up again and we could have actually another look at where the bins are going to be, because having a structure, there's one thing. I think bins is another. And I think it's a valid point, actually. So if we could just have a look at that again. Would it be industrial sized bin or individual bins for each flat? Do we know? I think if you... I think it's a commercial. They would normally be commercial, I would thought. Flatted developments normally. I just want to check if we condition that. We might have conditioned further details on that. No, I think I think it's yeah, I think it would be a commercial bin for a flatted development. Yeah. Yeah. We didn't condition the bin. Not like when you're converting a house into flats. This is purpose built. Yeah. So, yeah. So there's the just as you can see where things where the bins are cycle. So there's a cycle store in the cycle maintenance shed. Then there's a bin store there. Sorry, the graphic isn't too clear. It's just the size of the thing. Yeah, that's the is that the cycle store or the bin store? That's the bin store. Yeah, that's the bin store. Sorry. Yeah. It has to be there, does it? I mean, the thing is, we've got some I mean, we could say, in theory, apply condition, requiring a revised scheme of bin storage, cycle storage with a requirement to reposition them. But we have to think about where is appropriate, because, I mean, if you're looking at the site itself, it's got it's got kind of ample open space to the side. And and because it's so prominent along the street, you don't want to put your bin in cycle storage. But you also don't want to put them right next to somebody's boundary. Yeah, I mean, if in the summer, we'd obviously yeah, we would check. But I mean, we as local authority, we have the power to to apply a condition if we feel we would obviously discuss it with the with the with the agent. But just to to see if we could we won't belabor the point now, but that's certainly a consideration, I think, and a good point. I carry on council part of the points that have been mentioned in this is the traffic survey was used to be using about 14 year old data. Is it not possible to use 90 to 2021 data on it at all? If the way that those work is you do a parking survey and you'd have to to measure kind of parking and at the time, I mean, in this case, the agent provided that to us willingly. We didn't we didn't request that. We spoke to our highways officer and they they didn't have any major concerns. I mean, it's it's based on the scale of development. You've got six units, you've got four car parking spaces there. So really, the overspill would would be looking at one per unit. That's only that's only two spaces. And they didn't see any major concerns. I mean, we've seen cases where they don't provide as much parking as this for for development that scale. And they don't they don't sometimes they don't actually flag that as a concern. But, yeah, we spoke to the highways officer and they they hadn't got any hadn't had any concerns in regards to that. The the survey was provided by the agent. We didn't specifically request that. But it's yeah, fine. The data might be a bit dated, but it's essentially something we didn't necessarily require. And it itself, even though it might be a bit dated, has does can demonstrate that the impact would be acceptable in terms of the because this is speed trial to rating, which is quite low. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and we went on the weekend, but during the weekdays, there may be different situations because of the committed sparking there. Yeah. I mean, as I said, you have to bear in mind that there are four spaces there. And it's difficult these days to find a scheme that provides one space per flat. It's just it's ideal, but it doesn't always happen. And it's it's not feasible in all cases. And if they were to do that, you'd eat into the to the landscaping around the site. And it would kind of become a lot uglier with a lot more hard surfacing on site if you were to to increase the number of car parking spaces. But, yeah, I mean, it's we feel that there's there's a balanced approach and we feel that they've given they've given some onsite car parking spaces. And and, yeah, as I said, the highways offer didn't flag any major issues in regards to do over still parking in this area. And yet because of as a combination of that, we feel that that it is acceptable. So did you manage to find the height? Yeah. Sorry, I've got that. Yeah. So the existing heights are just measuring off the drawings. I can't say that it's going to be 100 percent accurate. But yeah, approximately. So the highest point of the ridge to the ridge of the existing building, it was about five point one eight. And then to the highest point of the proposed building, its highest measurement I've got to the ridge, not including the chimney just to the top of the roof is eight point seven four, eight point seven five. Roughly that. Yeah. OK, thank you. Sure. I would like to propose the refusal of this application. So I get off the ground or you need the second request. Probably best to get it seconded. Yes. OK. All right. I know Councillor Ali had his hand up. Are you going to give way or do you want to speak? I mean, I mean, it's only because once this has happened, it will close down some of my comments because we had a site visit. So as everybody knows, these developments, I mean, going back was built in nineteen thirties. And these bangles are everywhere in here, where I live, every street has got a few bangles. And there was purpose to build these bangles to provide accommodation or residence for the aging population of Harrow. Though it's nothing to do with this two buildings. But my other view is, I mean, it's two streets at the corner and the bangles are there to give a good view. And if you build this, the new development there, the two flats, it will block the whole both streets beautiful view. So this is nothing to do with me. I don't know whether I can object on these reasons, but my main concern is we need the bangles like these to remain there for Harrow aging population. The trouble is it's not the conservation area and they're not listed. This is not the basis of the objection, but this is my concern. Thank you. Right. Anyone else or Councillor Parrott, please carry on. I just thought it might be better to do it that way around. Makes more sense. Thank you. No, of course. But he had his hand up. Thanks. The poor bloke's been sent, you know, he's not well, so he's got in the, he's in the look section. The ground for refusal, I would say, is quite similar to one which was originally used, which I believe still applies the proposed development by reason of its excessive height. Bulk scale, massive and messing and proximate sitting in the relation to the rear garden and window of middle ground floor room of number 42. Somerville Road would appear as unduly overbearing and prominent when viewed from the rear garden of this property, unduly restricting the overall level of outlook and visual immunity currently afforded. The proposed development would be contrary to Core Policy CS1B of Herro Core Strategy 2012, Policy DM1C and DM1DD and E of Herro Development Management Policy Local Plan 2013. I'll give it to you later. Yes, I think it might be an idea to send Rita your wording tomorrow. Yeah, OK. Right, we've got a seconder for that. Right, well, I'd like to say a few words before we put it to the vote. I thought I'd wait and hear what everybody else had to say. I mean, the reason why I asked the question I asked before is because I would really like to be able to, you know, find a reason to refuse this. That might be a sustainable argument, actually, and I think it would help if we had the appeal decision, it would help enormously because then we'd have a higher authority. And you never know, you can never tell with the inspectorate, really, you know, we might have ended up with something that might have helped us out a bit more, you see. But the issue is that the reason for refusal, I hear what Councillor Assad said, and nobody could try harder than, frankly, our administration is in our local plan to try and stop houses being turned into flats, particularly converted or HMOs. And, you know, nobody could be, frankly, more upset about the legacy that we've inherited on all those skyscrapers, which I noticed, and she did say she voted for them, that Councillor Assad voted for for years, you know, quite frankly. I mean, we have, you know, obviously got all sorts of problems, and certainly our supplementary planning guidance, the SPD on tall buildings to try and protect the suburbs from tall buildings will stand us in much better stead and our local plan as well to try and keep as many family homes as possible. So, you know, there's no question, I mean, as far as the principles are concerned, I totally understand and respect what's been said against this application. But the problem is that the reason for refusal that was used was not about that. It was not about a principle. It was about the fact of, you know, the size of the development, the garden grabbing because it was an awful lot more building. And it's not a Greenbelt policy matrix calculation. It's not about the footprint exactly. But what it is about in a Brownfield site, which is what this is, is how much of the garden would the proposed building cover. And this one, whereas the previous one would have covered a lot of the garden, and it's absolutely right to say it was garden grabbing. I don't actually think we could use that reason here. And it's very difficult to see how. But then there were other things. There were the balconies, and they have been amended. And the site visit was actually very, very useful because sometimes when you do a site visit, it makes you actually know that something's not acceptable, more so than you ever thought. In this case, I'm afraid it made me realise more that actually, unfortunately, it is acceptable. In planning policy terms, it complies with all of our policies. And the trouble is, if you try and refuse something that complies with our policies, and it actually does. I mean, I understand what you're saying, Councillor Parrick, and, you know, I completely respect your views and you know I do. But I don't agree, actually, that it doesn't comply with, it does comply with our policies, actually. And the trouble is, if you try and refuse something, and obviously we all want to try and please people, we're politicians, you know, I've always said, you know, to give a bunch of politicians a job like this is bound to end up, you know, with all sorts of problems. Because we, none of us want to make ourselves unpopular and make people think that we, you know, we're horrible people. But the thing is, we've got to be able to win an appeal. And the idea that it sets a precedent as well, it doesn't. Each application is judged on its own merits. It doesn't follow that if this happened, the whole road would be converted into flats or there'd be flats everywhere. Just, it just isn't the case. And I do agree that it's regrettable. And I would rather that this didn't happen myself. And I completely understand that the residents are upset about it. But I can't find, and I am, as you know, Councillor Parrott, not bad at finding things wrong with applications. I can't find anything wrong with this, planning policy-wise, given the previous grounds of refusal. And what I think will happen in this case, but we can never be sure, is if we did try and refuse it for the reasons, this one, not the previous one that you've suggested, it probably wouldn't work. And we could end up with it being granted anyway. I don't think it would be unreasonable, I don't think we'd have to pay costs, but I do think that it probably would go ahead anyway. And the trouble is that that doesn't really get us anywhere in the long run. And I can tell you that, particularly Akshay, who's one of our very good officers, go on Akshay, go on, hello, please don't leave. OK, all right. He, you know, he's done a really good job, a thorough job of this. Sorry that the notification went a bit wrong, that is not good. But I think that the residents, and we've done a site visit now, can be satisfied that we've thoroughly looked into this as much as we can. And finally, as regards the 'we only discovered it by happen' chance, didn't we, that window in the additional room. I don't know if that room was an original feature of the bungalow, it could have actually originally been part of the lounge, you know, it's academic anyway. But in any event, the difficulty with refusing on the basis of a protected window would be, if it complies with a 45 degree code, then we can't. Because it doesn't, it isn't against our actual adopted household, you know, household as guide policy. So, you know, but I do accept that having this as a two storey building would be quite significantly more than what's there. But on the other hand, if you look at the, if you're standing facing the fence and looking out and onto the site, to the left hand side, that will all disappear. So, you know, in some respects, there'll be quite a clear view to the left hand side, but obviously if you look to the right a bit, then you'll have a two storey building there and at the moment you've only got a single storey building. So, you know, I can fully understand why people have objected to this, I really can, but unfortunately I can't agree with your reason for refusal, Councillor Hasid. No, Councillor Parekh, and as for Councillor Hasid, I'm afraid you've had your four minutes and if you were on the committee, you could carry on talking all night, but unfortunately you can't because you're not on the committee tonight. I just wanted to address the consultation issues that we raised and also the residents raised, if you could, Chair. I'm not going to because I have, you obviously haven't been paying attention. So, without further ado, we've had a reason for refusal and, you know, we're going to take that first. All those in favour of Councillor Parekh's reason for refusal, please show. Okay. All those against. Okay, that's not carried. So, now we'll take the recommendation. Sorry. Oh, we've got to do it on this thing. Do we have to? No, not this one, I think. I think we do, don't we? Because this isn't, no, actually, no, actually, we don't want to do that because this is, no. That's not being carried, has it? So, no, no, no, no, no. Okay, right. So, now we've got to take the substantive recommendation and it's recommended for grant by our professional officers. Yes? With the additional condition. Yes, I'm going to come to that. Sorry. And the only thing I would say is I would like an additional condition added to the application to further examine where we could put these commercial bins. I'm of the view that they shouldn't be next to the boundary. And there must be somewhere we could conceal them that doesn't affect the amenity of the people next door. Because I must admit, I wouldn't like it if the people next to me had their bins right next to my garden. You know, I don't think that's right. And it isn't a small site. I'm sure we can find somewhere else for them. But with that caveat, all those in favour of approval, please show. Okay. And all those against. Right. Okay. So, that is granted. Thank you. Next one is agenda item two. No, no. I won't come to your door, don't worry. So, I'm afraid that security will have to escort you out. We don't take care, Kaling. Thank you. Yeah, that's fine. All right. Thank you. I have voted. It's a bit of a distraction. And you proposed refusal. Councillor Parak, I really wish you would have a word with Councillor Asad's behaviour. It's not acceptable. We're entitled to have an opinion on this committee without being shouted at, and particularly by a Councillor. Doesn't help. Right. Okay. So, now we're on to Morrison's. And if I could ask you to present it, please. Thank you. So, this application is for an AMPR camera. It's retrospective, because we discovered it's been installed, mounted to a four metre high metal pole. So, it's just by the entrance to the, this is the full extent of the car park, it's just by the entrance, vehicle entrance to the car park. The best way to show you what it looks like is just to show you what it looks like. So there's some images of the pole and the camera. Just this is the entrance to the site. This is just in context with the road. So, I should probably explain some of the background to this application. So, I mean, it's planning commission was granted in 2004 for an extension to the main store and alterations to the car parking layout. And as part of the approval of the application, a condition was imposed which requires the car park to be made available to users of Harrow Arts Centre from 11am. Sorry, it's 8am to 11.50am on Mondays to Friday and after the closure of the store on every day. So, it should be made clear that this application is simply for the camera. I mean, we're not looking at the changes to the parking restrictions that might have been advertised on signage or anything. We've approved the signage under a separate application but as part of the assessment of the signage, we couldn't actually take into account the hours that was specified or what the text and stuff. We're just looking at the application on its own design merits and highways merits really. So that's separate. That was already approved. So now we're simply just looking at the AMPR camera and whether that's acceptable. And in essence, we feel it's a low-scale addition. There are, because there's a range of street furniture surrounding the site, some of which is taller. So we think it's generally acceptable on character grounds and we don't feel there'd be any issue on residential community grounds based on its siting. I think it's well away from residential properties. And it sits on the pavement, doesn't impede the road. As I said, there's lamp columns just beside which are taller than that so we don't have any major concerns on highway safety grounds. Just some images of the site itself. You can see some of the signage that's been installed but as I said, that's not pertinent to this application. We're just simply looking at the camera in its own respect. So that's the spot there is where the camera is going. The blue spot there. In the context of the car park, some elevation images of the camera and the pole. In essence, we believe that the application is acceptable and we recommend approval. Yes, I know that Councillor Parrick has called this in, I'm not quite sure why, because it's got nothing to do with the car parking management. And in fact, I know quite a lot about the history of this. It all sort of went a bit wrong really when the original permission was granted. And I say wrong, I don't mean wrong, but there was no section 106 green sign, the original condition attached to it. I think it was something like 8 something in the morning to 11 something in the morning that you could park. But I'm sure they meant 11 something at night and maybe it was even a typo. We actually don't know, do we? We've just tried to figure out what might have happened. It was way, way before anyone. It was called CFU, wasn't it? It was so old. It was on microfish, we sort of literally fished it out. So this is really just to do with the existence of a pole with a camera. And it's really got absolutely nothing to do with the parking management. And really, the only reason why it's a planning application is because I presume it's a little bit too high to be done under GPTO, you know, under Permitted Development. So really this is a bit of a, I mean, I don't know if anyone's patient enough to watch this, I don't doubt it very much, but that's fine. But if anyone is, you know, we're not here to judge what your car park wants to do with the car park. It's got absolutely nothing to do with this committee. And as you know, it's become quite a matter of contention. And I know that Mark Billington has got nothing to do with this committee at all, actually, has been in touch with Morrisons. And actually, they have been quite helpful. And Euro car parks. And I think were this camera to be used, it's got nothing, I'm just trying to fill in a few gaps here. Were the camera to be used, it may well be that we come to some sort of arrangement whereby people using our art centre might be able to stay a bit longer. And we just haven't worked that out yet. But we do need to sign a car parking management agreement actually with them outside of the purview of this committee or the local planning authority. Because at the moment, we don't actually have an agreement at all. But this, in of itself, has got absolutely nothing to do with the principles here. And I'm not altogether quite sure why it's before us, to be honest. It really is just a poll with a camera. That's all it is. Basically, I agree with you in terms of what the actual, but the perception it's giving out is they're trying to regulate the parking levels even for her art centre. And I just want to know, do we not have any arrangement with her art centre as to if the NPR is operative, there can be some registry in her art centre for the region? I don't think you're right, actually. I mean, I'm pretty good on, as you know, on Facebook and that sort of thing. And I talk to people and I think they do recognise that this has got absolutely nothing to do with car parking management. It's not about perception. I mean, if you go around telling people things like after the meeting, I don't know whether there's a political edge to this, who knows? Or that committee, they granted the poll with the camera, therefore they're not on your side. That would be a lie because this committee is completely on the side of the residents and the people that want to use her art centre. That's our art centre. We obviously don't want to have a problem with Morrisons and we don't want to have people not being able to park. It's like, you know, as bright as a sunny day. It's very clear that we don't want any problems. But this has got nothing to do with that. And I don't think there's a perception out there. I think people, you know, you shouldn't take people for fools. I think people understand the difference between a poll with a camera and the car parking management situation, which is not a matter for the local planning authority. It's really not. We can't say no, you can't have a poll with a camera. It's not in a conservation area. It's the only reason why it's a planning permission is because it's too tall to be permitted development or it wouldn't even need permission. What it actually is used for is not a matter for us here. We haven't got any reason to refuse this. But you're right, it's separate to the planning authority. There is work being done by Mark Billington and his team on, you know, negotiating and I'm sure that Morrisons, they don't want to upset everyone. Why would they want to do that? They want people to go and shop in their store. And I can assure you a lot of people wouldn't if they started to be difficult about something like this. But not that it's a matter for me. And it's certainly not a matter for this committee. But I really don't think that there is a misunderstanding here. This is a poll with a camera and it's got nothing to do with what it's used for. Thank you, chair. Well, yes and no. It is a matter for this committee, not necessarily for this application in terms of the condition that was attached to the previous planning application. So, yes, I'm not saying we shouldn't oppose the poll. But under the previous condition, it shouldn't be used to enforce any parking restrictions that are at odds with the condition that was -- which is still -- Except that that finishes, I think, 12 midday, doesn't it? Well, whatever it is. It doesn't help us out. I think the notices -- I think what the issue is, I'm a bit disappointed with Morrisons that they've gone ahead and put the notices up and this up. So have I. Before they've come to an agreement with the arts center and with Harrow council, I remember when Teresa was knocked down and Morrisons was built or Safeway was built in 1990 because I was a council appointee as a trustee of Harrow arts council at that time and I remember the conversations about parking and using this car park at that time and then it was regularized. I don't think in the planning application in 1990 any consideration was given to use by the arts center. Can't quite remember. I should be able to remember, but I can't. I have to be honest. I have -- and Sushella has done a grand job, haven't you, of fishing it all out. Must have taken you ages. We've looked through it quite meticulously, separate to this committee, and I've been working with Mark Billington. And when this happened before as well, I can remember it was Keith Ferry that had a meeting and they had a car parking management agreement. And then for some reason it never got signed when he was the portfolio holder and I don't know why. So what's happened is that we've ended up without really having a car park management agreement, but that's really got nothing to do with this committee and this application. Okay. I agree that and we have an informative that suggests that the council may or perhaps should say will take enforcement action if that condition from 2003 is breached. So I think we can all agree that we want to get agreement with Morrisons. We all want to have that car park available at the appropriate times for users of Harrow Arts Center, whether it be for evening performances, weekend performances. Because I don't think it impacts too much on Morrisons. I'm a regular user of that supermarket and I've never ever had any difficulty in parking. That's a huge car park. Huge car park. So I don't see any reason why we can't come to agreement with Morrisons. So I just want to for us all to say, yes, we're happy with the poll. But please, can we get an agreement with you Morrisons to allow usage by Harrow Arts Center users before you start implementing what you put on your your car park site. Yeah, I mean, obviously, although I think it's a typo, but anyway, it's the way it is. Obviously the condition, there was no section 106 agreement, which I can't imagine why there wasn't because there should have been. There should have been a legal agreement in my view, but it didn't happen when the Safeways was granted. And the condition only really gives a few hours in the morning. I agree that if that was breached, it would be enforceable. That's not really the way to solve this, unfortunately. The way to solve this is how Mark Binnington is solving it, and that's by speaking nicely to Morrison. Look, you've got a big car park, and we'd like to be able to use it within reason for our Harrow Arts Center people. I mean, part of the agreement, I think, that was reached by the previous administration was that they would have a camera, but you'd have to, I mean, some restaurants do that. They sort of take spaces from a car park next door, and you have to sort of type in a code or something, you know. So the camera probably, if it's used, could be used for that, and in which case it would be useful, because it would mean that the Harrow Arts Center users would still have the ability to be able to park there. Yeah, and they can type in a number or something, you know, I mean, that's what we're working on. But it really, I'm happy to talk about it very openly here, but in the end, what we're looking at is a pole with a camera on it, and what it's used for isn't exactly to do with us, not really. And I don't think there's much we can do about it, but what I want to make clear to anyone watching this is, it's not, we're not saying that we're not, you know, very worried about the parking situation. And we hope that Morrisons and Euro car parks are reasonable, and we can come to a satisfactory arrangement that suits them, because to be fair, is there land, okay, and they are entitled to say they don't want people just using it as a free car park. But if it's for the Harrow Arts Center people, we're rather hoping that we can come to an amicable arrangement, 'amicable' being the right word to use, and that's the way to get things done. So, you know, we've got a recommendation for Grant, can we take it to the vote? Because it's really a pole with a camera, that's all it is. Okay, right, all those in favour? How can you, you don't say why? Okay, you don't have to say why, but it's ridiculous. Okay, that's fine. Yeah, we do, good, right. Right, that's correct. One thing I don't want to say though, and I'm going to say this very publicly, I don't want to see a leaflet misleading people in Ricelet, Northwood and Pinner about this meeting. No, I'm not talking about Matthew, I'm talking about whoever it is that's challenging David Simmons. I don't want to see a leaflet about this, and if there is, that's going to be a real problem and it's going to come from me. Okay, right, next. Yes, 70, you know this one, 70 Axbridge Road, thank you. Thanks, Chair. Yeah, the application number three, 70 Axbridge Road. This application seeks outlined permission to demolish the existing building and construct a two-storey with habitable roof space containing eight flats. The details of access, appearance, layout and scale are only to be considered landscaping matters. Landscaping details are reserved matter. Yeah, the application site relates to a one-and-a-half-storey detached dwelling house which is on the corner with Glamp Hill and Axbridge Road roundabout. It's largely an island plot which adjoins a woodland area to the west, an open space to the east. To the rear is a residential block of housing. To the south is a mix of commercial properties with residential accommodation located above. Here on the screen is just a few site photos. From the front is viewed from Axbridge Road and to the bottom right is the open space further east with the apartment block to the right-hand side. These are just some photos of the rear of the property. And I just think at this point it's important to note that this application put forward is very similar to two applications that were actually refused at committee but allowed at appeal. I've provided some images on the screen for you. And the reasons for refusal only related to the provision of disabled parking on-site. Due to the location of the property, on-site parking won't be provided. There's no on-site access at the moment and those details would be secured by condition. Moving on, this is just some plans of the previous scheme that was allowed at appeal. Both are the same for eight flats. And the proposal put forward mimics the Tudor-style finish. It's still the two stories with some habitable flats in the roof space. The main material changes from what was previously allowed onto this application is the infilling of - I might go back, it's probably easier to see - to the north-west of the site. The infilling of that space is about 24 square metres. That is the main difference with the inclusion of some balconies. The internal arrangements will change slightly. The number of flats won't change but it will be six one-beds, there will be one two-bed and one three-bed proposed on this proposal. Again, the floor plans here, all very, very similar to what was previously allowed by the balconies. So, just to conclude, after assessing all the main planning considerations, the principal development is accepted. The size and design is accepted as well and it would not be detrimental to the impact of neighbouring properties and the residential standards are all met as well. So, we ask the committee to grant planning permission subject to conditions. Yes. Thanks, Chair. I mean, to be honest, there's nothing I can say with that it's been approved in the appeal. Only one thing I was - look, because it's 1882, the building is quite old and I'm not sure why we've not listed it yet, but nothing I can do at the moment, so... I feel a bit late for that. That's why I'm saying, yeah, it's too late for that but it's a shame that we're not going to... I know, well, look, listen, you know, I mean, we got it refused, didn't we? Yeah, exactly. And we lost the appeal and, I mean, the only thing I could find wrong with it then was not having a disabled parking space and that didn't get anywhere. You know, it's just one of those things, yeah. It's not really any more decisions we did in the past, so, but anyway, we're not... Baxter? Yeah, Chair, just to say, I think I made a similar point, not about listing, but about the age of it and obviously it has the year displayed on the front of the existing building. When it first came to planning, the first letter of committee, I think, over two years ago now, Beverly Kutcher, I think, was the person who replied to me and there are plenty of buildings that are old and get redeveloped. It's a shame. And yet we sometimes list buildings, you just can't understand why. You know, who knows, we are where we are, she said brightly. Right, so look, we've got... can we put it to the vote because I mean we are where we... yeah, it's more or less a variational theme, isn't it? So we've got a recommendation for approval, those in favour, granted, that's unanimous. And I won't forget to use the machine this time, all right? Somebody's press refusal. I don't know. Now you're abstaining. You may as well press... yeah, that's right, because I mean, you know, to say it's unanimous and then you've abstained doesn't make any sense, does it? Right. Can we get on to 18, weather or drive, please? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Item 204 relates to 18, weather or drive in Stanmore, which is in the Belmont Ward. The proposal relates to a two-storey semi-detached property on the west-hand side of the road. To the north, you have the unattached semi-detached property at number 16, and to the south, you have the attached semi at number 20. The slides just show you the front and rear elevations of the subject property. The house has a single-storey and first floor extension on the side. The adjoining property has also been extended to the front and to the side, as has the unattached neighbour to the north. At the rear, you can see the house, the subject property has a single-storey rear extension, which is to sort of half the width of the property. You can just see on the right-hand side that the attached semi-detached property also has a single-storey rear extension with a first floor rear addition. And the unattached neighbour to the north has a rear extension as well. These photos just show it more clearly in relation to the attached property to the south and the unattached property to the north. The proposal before planning committee this evening relates to household developments. The reason the application is before committee is because the application is made by a member of staff at Harrow Council, otherwise it would be a delegated proposal. The scheme involves an outbuilding at the rear containing incidental uses to the dwelling house, a single-storey rear extension and a first floor addition to the property to enlarge the bathroom and provide an ensuite bedroom to the rear. These are the elevations of the proposal, front, side and rear, and these are the elevations of the rear outbuilding. To look at the floor plans, the rear extension is six metres in depth, it projects 2.4 metres beyond the adjoining neighbour, which also benefits from a rear extension, and the unattached neighbour to the north by about 800 millimetres. The first floor plan, you can see the first floor side to rear addition. The proposal meets the 45 degree code taken from both neighbours, and it's important to note that there isn't a rear window on this elevation at the neighbours, there is a window in this elevation, a flank, however that window is a bathroom window, it is not a protected window or source of light or outlook. And this demonstrates the floor plan layout of the proposed outbuilding, which contains incidental uses to the main house with a home office, gym and shower with a stall. So we've assessed the application in accordance with the development plan policies for Harrow, we believe the proposal accords with the development plan policies with regards to character and appearance and amenity. There has been one objection from the neighbour citing impacts in relation to loss of light to their window at the top of their property, but it is a bathroom, therefore we believe that there is not an unreasonable impact on that neighbour. The proposal meets all relevant policies within the development plan and we've recommended it for grants subject to a condition. I'm happy to take any questions if you have any. We'll get it right first go. Next, that's another staff member, isn't it? Item 205 relates to 72 Elm Grove present in the Greenhill Ward. The proposal is for a large single-storey rear extension under permitted development or the prior approval process. The scheme seeks prior approval for a six-meter-deep extension under the GPDO regulations. Under the regulations, the applicant is required to submit an application to the council for prior approval. The council are obligated within legislation to write letters to the neighbours adjoining the property, so in this case there are three premises which have an adjoining boundary. In accordance with the regulations, if we don't receive any objections from the neighbours in relation to loss of amenity to those neighbours, then prior approval should be granted by default. However, because the applicant is a member of staff, we're unable to do that under delegated powers and the recommendation therefore to Planning Committee is that prior approval is not required for this development. Thank you. Can we take it to the vote? All those in favour? Right. Councillor Brown, are you going to vote? Yes, he's voted, I think. You see, look at this, all this practice and we get it right. Right. Okay, now I think I'm going to need to go outside for a bit. Councillor Baxter, do you want to come and sit in the hot seat? All right, thank you. Now that Councillor Ashton is out of the room, could I ask the officer to present, please? Sure, thank you, Chair. Item number 206 relates to Chestnut Cottage in Tanglewood Close, which is in the Stanmore Ward of Harrow. The proposal relates to a detached property on this cul-de-sac which is unadopted highway, otherwise known as a private road. The site is located in the metropolitan greenbelt and is sited within a historic park and garden owing to its location adjacent to Bentley Priory. There are locally listed buildings in the vicinity of the property as well. The proposed gates are to be inserted in between these two existing gate piers. So there are already the gate piers on the site and the proposal seeks to put 1.9 metre high wrought iron gates to provide an element of security to the home. The slide at the moment shows the existence of other gates within the vicinity of this home on Tanglewood Close. There's a mixture of wrought iron gates and wooden gates, essentially. So there's wrought iron gates at Longcote and Heath Lodge and then the adjacent home at Tanglewood Cottage has these wooden sort of close-boarded gates, however there are views through. One of the main considerations in relation to this scheme is that it's in greenbelt and one of the main priorities of the metropolitan greenbelt is to maintain open character. The proposal is permeable, you can see through it, there wouldn't be a loss of openness as a result of the proposal. We believe the proposal doesn't have an unacceptable impact in relation to designated heritage assets within the vicinity of the site. In terms of crime and safety, there are no objections and in terms of highway safety, there are no objections so we've recommended the application accordingly. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Councillor Brown. Could I just ask, were there previously gates to this property? Because I see there are gate piers so I assume there must have been or currently are gates, I don't know. Thank you. We have no record of gates on this house, so there may well have been but there is no record of them. And there is no record of any planning history in relation to these gates that are on the screen. No, it looks plain. Could I also ask, I know our conservation officer is quite picky, sorry that's the wrong word. I didn't mean to say that. She's very keen to ensure that all applications in these areas strictly meet the criteria laid down. And I just wondered, and I see that she has said it would be more appropriate if it was timber, I just wonder how close it was to being you must have timber or whether this is within her flexibility allows there to be metal gates, because I do see two of the other properties have metal gates as well. Yeah, so we've addressed that in paragraph 4.3.3 on page 210. She has cited a preference for informal timber gates but the metal ones are okay. So therefore no objections. Thank you. Councillor Parrik. I think the metal one in my view is much more secure in terms of the safety as well and it's much more open. I think I would prefer metal gate rather than the wooden one. But anyway, thank you. I agree with you from the point of view of openness, more is allowed by the thin but metal gates. Anyway, any further comments or questions from members? Okay, in that case we've got a proposal to grant and we take it to the vote. All those in favour? Excellent. Right, now we'll vote electronically. Oh we are at six this time, isn't it? Excellent, that is granted. Could someone ask Councillor Ashton to come back in, please? I'll hand it over. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.