The Harrow Council Planning Committee met on 3 September, and made decisions on planning applications, including approving a housing development on Harrow Island, and the removal of a protected tree. The committee also reviewed appeal decisions from the previous quarter, and discussed ways to improve the council's success rate in defending planning appeals.

Planning Appeals

The committee received a report on planning appeal decisions from the second quarter of the year, presented by an officer named Mehdi. Of 32 appeals, 19 had been dismissed, representing a 59.4% success rate for the council, while 13 were allowed. There had been four applications for costs against the council, with three refused and one accepted. Councillor Marilyn Ashton, Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Planning & Regeneration, said she would like to see more appeals dismissed, particularly householder appeals¹. She suggested that the council should only refuse applications that would cause significant harm and where there were strong grounds for refusal.

26 Woodridings Avenue, Hatch End

The committee considered an application for a single-storey front extension, a single-storey side to rear extension, alterations to the roof, installation of solar panels, and a patio at 26 Woodridings Avenue, Hatch End.

Baljit Dulai, a neighbour from 24 Woodridings Avenue, spoke against the application, raising concerns about loss of light and outlook from side-facing windows, and the impact on the street landscape. He said that the proposed extension would place a solid brick wall just 40cm from his windows, and would block all outlook.

Leena Bhatt, agent for the applicant, said that number 24 already had a single-storey side extension built to the boundary, and that the living room at number 24 was primarily served by a large patio door to the rear. She added that the Harrow residential design guidance makes clear that side windows are secondary and non-protected.

Councillor Ashton said that the windows at number 24 were not protected in terms of the council's 2010 SPD² Householders Guide, as they were not the primary source of light into the room. She added that there was no real planning reason to refuse the application, as it complied with the council's policy.

Councillor Nitin Parekh agreed, saying that the sun would be coming from the south and southern side, so the light would not be an issue. Councillor Christopher Baxter said that he could not see any planning reasons to refuse the application.

The committee voted to grant the application, with six councillors in favour. Councillor Stephen Hickman was not present for the vote, having declared a non-pecuniary interest as he lived nearby.

T1 Oak, 263 The Ridgeway, North Harrow

The committee considered an application to remove a protected oak tree (T1) in the rear garden of 263 The Ridgeway, North Harrow. The tree was implicated in subsidence-related damage to the neighbouring property, 261 The Ridgeway.

An officer named Rebecca said that site investigations had been carried out, and that supporting evidence was sufficient to implicate the tree. She added that insurers had rejected a root barrier as a solution, but had agreed to fund the removal of the tree and replacement with three new trees. She explained that if the council refused permission for felling, the insurers would seek to recover the costs of alternative solutions, such as underpinning, from the council, estimated to be between £40,000 and £45,000.

Councillor Parekh asked how far the tree was from the nearest wall, and how old the tree was. Rebecca said that the tree was about 11 metres from the affected building, and was probably around a century old. Councillor Parekh asked if the effect of heave³ had been considered if the tree was removed. Rebecca said that a heave assessment was usually done, but that heave was only usually a problem when there was pre-existing subsidence.

Councillor Ashton said that if the council did not agree to the removal, it could end up costing a fortune for something that was ineffective. She added that she was not happy about the situation, but that it was a matter of balancing the risks.

Councillor Hickman, a ward councillor for the area, said that he did not take any joy in seeing such a long-standing tree being felled, but that it was important to follow the advice of those who were qualified in such matters.

The committee voted to grant the application, with Councillors Ashton, Baxter, Samir Sumaria and Zak Wagman in favour. Councillors Ghazanfar Ali, Hickman and Parekh abstained from voting.

Harrow Island Site, Land at Hailsham Drive

The committee considered an application for the redevelopment of a vacant site at Hailsham Drive, known as the Harrow Island site, for the construction of a five-storey building comprising nine residential units.

An officer named Rebecca highlighted an addendum to the agenda, which included minor amendments to the conditions. She said that the site was within the Harrow and Wilsdon Opportunity Area, and that the surrounding area was mixed in character. She added that the proposal sought to develop the vacant property for residential purposes, and included a mix of five two-bedroom and four one-bedroom flats, with a voluntary accessible flat at ground floor level.

Councillor Parekh asked about car parking, and how deliveries would be managed. Rebecca said that there was no parking provided on-site, and that a delivery and servicing plan would be secured by a condition. An officer named Sushila added that Hailsham Drive was used to dealing with HGVs, and that the highways authority had not raised any objection.

Councillor Ashton said that it was quite an achievement to come up with an acceptable planning application on this site, and that she was rather impressed. Councillor Ali asked about bin storage and the distance between the construction and the railway tracks. Rebecca said that the bin storage was shown on the ground floor, and that the collections would be confirmed via the delivery and servicing plan. She added that Network Rail had raised an objection, but that this was more to do with construction matters.

The committee voted unanimously to grant the application, subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement⁴.