SECTION 1 – MAJOR APPLICATIONS
ITEM NO:
1/01
ADDRESS:
KEMPSFORD HOUSE HOTEL, 21 ST JOHNS ROAD, HARROW
REFERENCE:
P/4885/15
DESCRIPTION
REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE A FIVE STOREY BUILDING
FOR TWENTY-SEVEN FLATS WITH PARKING PRIVATE AND
COMMUNAL AMENITY SPACE SOLAR PANELS ON ROOF
LANDSCAPING AND BIN / CYCLE STORAGE
WARD
GREENHILL
APPLICANT:
NETWORK HOUSING ASSOCIATION
AGENT:
CGMS LTD
CASE OFFICER:
JUSTINE MAHANGA
EXPIRY DATE:
07/03/2016
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT permission subject to authority being delegated to the Divisional Director of
Planning in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the
completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and issue of the planning permission and
subject to minor amendments to the conditions or the legal agreement. The Section 106
Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:
(i)
Provision of 11 affordable units, including two wheelchair fitted affordable rented
units and a review mechanism to secure an appropriate tenure mix;
(ii)
Financial contribution towards the Green Grid
(iii)
Legal Fees: Payment of Harrow Council‟s reasonable costs in the preparation of
the legal agreement.
REASON
The site is currently occupied by a dated hotel which given its size, is afforded no
protection in the adopted development plan. The proposed redevelopment of the site
would result in a modern, contemporary design that responds positively to the local
context, and would provide appropriate living conditions which for all future occupiers of
the development.
The layout and orientation of the buildings and separation distance to neighbouring
properties is considered to be satisfactory to protect the amenities of the neighbouring
occupiers.
The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the
National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the policies and proposals in The London
Plan (consolidated with all alterations since 2011)2015, the Harrow Core Strategy 2012,
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
1
the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan 2013 and the Development Management
Policies Local Plan 2013, and to all relevant material considerations, and any comments
received in response to publicity and consultation.
RECOMMENDATION B
That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 16th June 2016 then it is
recommended to delegate the decision to REFUSE planning permission to the Divisional
Director of Planning on the grounds that:
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure affordable
housing on site and a contribution to offset a failure to meet target reductions in carbon
output, would fail to comply with the requirements of policies 3.11, 3.12 & 5.2 of The
London Plan 2011 and policy CS1.J of the Harrow Core Strategy 2012, and policy DM12
of the Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
INFORMATION:
This application is reported to Planning Committee as it would provide in excess of
exceed 6 residential units. The application is therefore referred to the Planning
Committee as it is it does fall within any of the provisions set out at paragraphs 1(a) –
1(h) of the Scheme of Delegation dated 29 May 2013.
Statutory Return Type: Major Development
Council Interest: None
Gross Floorspace: 1,985sqm
Net Additional Floorspace: 1,075sqm
GLA Community Infrastructure (CIL) Contribution: £37,625.00
Harrow Community Infrastructure (CIL) Contribution: £118,250.00
Site Description

The application site is a rectangular parcel of land, located on the eastern side of St
Johns Road, near its junction with Gayton Road.

The site currently contains a three-storey Hotel building (Kempsford House Hotel).
The building has been vacant for a significant period.

The site is within Harrow Town Centre and also falls within the Harrow and
Wealdstone intensification area, as designated by the London Plan and the Harrow
Core Strategy.

The surrounding area consists of a mix of uses due to its location within Harrow
town centre.

The northern end of St Johns Road is generally characterised by commercial
properties nearer Station Road, while further south along St Johns Road are
generally residential led developments.

Opposite the application site is the Lyon Road redevelopment site which formerly
comprised office buildings. The site has an extant planning permission to construct
a mixed-use development (maximum height of 14 storeys).

The application site adjoins a four-storey sheltered accommodation building to the
north-west (Tapley Court) and a three-storey residential development to the southeast (Gayton Court).

The property is not located within a conservation area, nor are there any listed
buildings in the immediate surrounds.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
2


The site includes a PTAL rating of 6a (excellent).
The site falls within a critical drainage area.
Proposal Details

The proposed development intends to demolish the existing three-storey hotel
building.

The proposed replacement build would comprise a contemporary five storey
detached building (Class C3) providing 27 self-contained flats, including a mix of
one-bed (2 person), two-bed (3 person) and two-bed (4 person) units.

11 of the proposed units would be affordable units.

Proposed plot 3, 4 and 5 (ground floor) would be a wheelchair adaptable flats.

The proposed new build would follow a T-shape footprint, extending 23.5m across
the width of the site and 33m in depth.

The building would include a footprint of 503sqm, which represents 40% site
coverage.

The proposed building would be constructed of London stock brickwork, with a
recessed fifth floor. The building would have a maximum height of 15.7m.

The proposed fifth floor and recessed elements of the front elevation balconies
would be constructed of dark standing seam metal cladding.

A communal amenity space would be located at the rear of the site, on both sides
of the reward projection of the building.

3 wheelchair accessible car parking spaces would be provided in the front
forecourt, accessed visa two vehicle crossovers from St Johns Road.

Refuse and recycling would be stored internally on the southern side of the building
and would be brought forward to an external storage area at the front of the site on
collection days.

Secure cycle parking for 48 cycles would be provided at the rear of the site.

Solar panels are proposed on the roof of the building.
Relevant History
LBH/24912
Garage at rear
Granted: 28.02.84
LBH/24064
Single storey rear extension
Granted: 19.09.83
LBH/40913
Outline: Demolition of existing building and erection of a 4 storey building with access
and parking (revised)
Refused: 03.07.90
LBH/202/3
Erection of a two-storey and first floor extensions to provide additional hotel
accommodation and private quarters.
Granted: 06.11.75
LBH/2159
House for children‟s play group
Granted: 21.03.59
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
3
HAR/8880
Premises for multiple occupation
Granted: 26.02.54
HAR/9347/A
House for multiple occupation
Refused: 29.10.54
Pre-Application Discussion (P/1888/15/PREAPP):
 The proposal for a residential use at the site is acceptable in principle.
 The applicant was advised to reduce the height of the building to four storeys.
 The elevational treatment is generally considered to be acceptable.
 The proposal should provide 40% affordable units. A viability assessment should be
provided in support of any planning application.
 A daylight / sunlight assessment should be submitted to confirm that the proposed
new build would not have an unreasonable impact on adjacent amenity.
 A car free development would be supported, however wheelchair spaces should
support the allocation of wheelchair units.
Applicant Submission Documents
 Design and Access Statement, prepared by MEPK architects;
 Daylight and Sunlight Study (neighbouring properties), prepared by Right of Light
Consulting;
 Daylight and Sunlight Study (within development), prepared by Right of Light
Consulting;
 Drainage Strategy Statement, prepared by RPS;
 Planning Statement, prepared by CgMs;
 Energy Statement, prepared by BBS;
 Bat Presence / Likely-Absence Survey, prepared by Turner Jomas & Associates;
 Townscape and Design Assessment, prepared by townscape solutions;
 Transport Statement, prepared by TTP Consulting Ltd;
 Geo-environmental desk study / preliminary risk assessment, prepared by Jomas.
Consultations
 Highways Authority (Parking): This development is presented as car free (except for
3 disabled bays) which is welcomed in this area of excellent public transport
accessibility. Furthermore, the development site is within controlled parking zone E
(non-permits). This part of the CPZ does not have any resident permit bays and so
residents cannot apply for permits if they live in the area. This all contributes to
encouraging travel by non-car modes.
 Drainage Engineer: Recommended conditions of approval.
 Landscape Architect: No Objection subject to standard conditions relating to
landscaping, boundary treatment and levels.
 Housing Enabling Team: Support for proposal.
Site Notice:
Posted:1/12/15
Neighbourhood Notifications:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
4
Greenhill Mansions, 11 Gayton Road, Harrow, HA1 2HQ
Gayton Court, Sheepcote Road, Harrow, HA1 2HD
Elmer Court, 15 St Johns Road, Harrow, HA1 2ET
Charville Court, Gayton Road, Harrow, HA1 2HT
Various properties on St Johns Road, Harrow, HA1 2EF
Tapley Court, St Johns Road, Harrow, HA1 2HZ
Cymberline Court, Gayton Road, Harrow, HA1 2HT
The Junction Public House, 9 Gayton Road, Harrow, GA1 2ET
Wilton Place, Gayton Road, Harrow, HA1 2HJ
Knowles Court, 24 Gayton Road, Harrow, HA1 2HA
Sent: 300
Replies: 10
Expiry: 30/12/15
Summary of Comments;
 The proposal is an over development of the site.
 The proposed five storey height is not in keeping with the surrounding area
 The rear projection would impact the amenity to Gayton Court by way of a loss of
privacy, outlook and light.
 The proposed floor area of the flats and individual rooms are too small.
 The proposal would have an impact on the bin storage shelter for Gayton Court.
 The proposed balconies should include solid screening.
 The proposal would result in an increased pressure on parking and traffic congestion.
APPRAISAL
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:
„If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to
be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with
the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
The Government has issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which
consolidates national planning policy and is a material consideration in the determination
of this application.
In this instance, the Development Plan comprises The London Plan (consolidated with
alterations since 2011)(2015) and the Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF
comprises The Harrow Core Strategy 2012, Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan
(AAP) 2013, the Development Management Policies Local Plan (DMP) 2013, the Site
Allocations Local Plan (SALP) 2013 and Harrow Local Area Map (LAP) 2013.
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of Development
Character and Appearance of the Area
Residential Amenity
Accessibility
Affordable Housing
Traffic and Parking
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
5
Development and Flood Risk
Sustainable Building and Design
Statement of Community Involvement
Planning Obligations
Equalities
S17 Crime & Disorder Act 1998
Consultation Response
Principle of Development
There are no specific policies contained within the AAP that directly relate to the loss of
hotels, although it is noted that Policy AAP16 does refer to the provision of major hotel
developments within the Harrow Town Centre. Similarly, there is no specific policy within
the Development Management Policies Local Plan (DMP) that would apply. Strategic
policy 4.5A(b) of the London Plan seeks to achieve 40,000 net additional hotel bedrooms
by 2036, of which at least 10 per cent should be wheelchair accessible, sub section (c)
sets out the strategic location where new visitor accommodation would be appropriate.
At local decision level, policy 4.5B of the London Plan sets out that development should
contribute towards the hotel provision, be consistent with the strategic location principles
set out under 4.5A(c) and not result in the loss of strategically important hotel capacity..
For outside Central London locations, strategically important hotel capacity would
typically comprise development exceeding 15,000 square metres.
The Kempsford House Hotel has a floor area of just under 910 sqm (approximate) and it
is therefore well below the threshold of a strategically important hotel as defined in the
London Plan. The hotel itself is dated in appearance. Whilst it is noted that a loss of a
further hotel within the town centre is regrettable (in light if the closure of The Harrow
Hotel on Pinner Road and the Cumberland Hotel also on St John‟s Road), it is
acknowledged that the current premises due to its dated nature is unlikely to draw a high
level of patronage when compared to a more modern and similar standard of hotel. In
the absence of any specific policies within the development plan to safeguard this type
of hotel accommodation, even cumulatively considering the loss of Cumberland Hotel
and Harrow Hotel, it is considered that the loss of the hotel could be supported in
principle.
The application site falls within the sub area of Harrow Town Centre East as set out in
the AAP. Whilst the site is not an allocated development site as defined within the
adopted Site Allocations Local Plan (2013), the site is regarded as previously developed
land for the purposes of the policies contained within the National Planning Policy
Framework and the Harrow Core Strategy which seeks to redirect all new development
the Harrow and Development Opportunity Area, to town centers and to previously
developed land in suburban area. On this basis, the proposal to develop this site for
residential purposes is considered to be acceptable in principle.
The loss of the hotel is further reinforced by the fact that the redevelopment would bring
forward the delivery of affordable housing on this site which would add to the Council‟s
housing delivery targets.
In conclusion, having regard to the fact that there is no presumption against the loss of
this hotel and taking into consideration that the site is regarded as previously developed
land, the proposed residential redevelopment of the site is considered to be acceptable
within this town centre context. On this basis, the proposal is considered to be
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
6
acceptable in principle with regard to the above policies.
Character and Appearance of the Area
Policy 7.4 (B) of the London Plan requires that buildings, streets and open spaces
should provide a high quality design response that has regard to the pattern and grain of
the existing spaces and streets in orientation, scale, proportion and mass.
Core Policy CS1.B specifies that „All development shall respond positively to the local
and historic context in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce the positive
attributes of local distinctiveness whilst promoting innovative design and/or enhancing
areas of poor design; extensions should respect their host building.‟
Policies AAP1 and AAP4 of the AAP seeks to a high standard of development within the
Harrow Town Centre and throughout the Heart of Harrow. Policy AAP1 states that
development within all three sub areas of Harrow town centre will be required to
strengthen its character, legibility and role as a Metropolitan Centre.
St Johns Road is noted as being mixed in character, without any significant commonality
of design. The northern end of St Johns Road is generally characterised by commercial
properties nearer Station Road, including the former Cumberland Hotel site and the fivestorey Gayton Central Library. Planning permission P/0586/15 recently granted approval
for the demolition of the existing Cumberland Hotel and redevelopment of the site to
provide 121 residential units within blocks ranging from five to nine storeys. The
redevelopment of this site, including the approved building heights, has taken account of
the sites close proximity to Station Road and also its frontages to St Johns Road and
Sheepcote Road.
Opposite the application site is the Lyon Road redevelopment site which formerly
comprised office buildings known as Equitable House and Lyon House. This site has an
extant planning permission to construct a mixed use development comprising a range of
building heights, with the maximum height being 14 storeys high on the junction with
Lyon Road and St Johns Road.
The character of development at the southern end of St John‟s Road is generally
characterised by residential lead schemes, ranging in height from three to four storeys.
Permission was recently granted at no. 9 St Johns Road for the redevelopment to
provide a four-storey flatted development (P/1723/15). The immediate adjoining
properties are three / four storey residential buildings with traditional pitched roofs.
Massing and scale
The subject application seeks permission to replace the existing three-storey Hotel
building with a more contemporary style five storey flatted development. The proposed
building would form a T-shape and would be constructed of London stock brickwork and
metal cladding.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
7
The proposed building would form part of the streetscene and appropriately relates its
siting to the building line at this end of St John‟s Road. Specifically, the front building line
of the proposed development would align with the adjacent front elevation of Gayton
Court to the south and would be set marginally forward of Tapley Court to the north.
While the projecting rear element, which gives rise to the „T‟ shaped building footprint,
represents a departure from the immediately adjacent context of development, the
proposed footprint is considered acceptable in this instance and is evident on other sites
along Sheepcote Road. In this case, the site has sufficient depth to accommodate the
rear projection and the rear projection would sit comfortably within the site. The main
building and rear projection also provides sufficient distances with the adjoining buildings
and side boundaries, therefore maintaining adequate space around the proposed
building to provide an appropriate setting. Furthermore, due to the relationship with the
adjoining development, it is considered that views of the rear projection would be limited
within the streetscene.
While it is noted that the proposed development would exceed the established fourstorey maximum height on this side of St John‟s Road, given the emerging character of
development within the immediate surrounds and also when considering the appropriate
design of the proposal, the height and proportions of the new build is in this case
considered acceptable. Specifically, while it is noted that the proposal would adjoin a
three and four storey building, the parapet of the main building would not exceed the roof
pitch of either of these adjoining properties. While it is acknowledged that the overall
height of the building (including the fifth floor) would extend marginally higher than these
adjoining properties, this difference in height would not be overly discernible within the
streetscene. Furthermore, the use of metal cladding ensures that the fifth floor
distinguished from the appearance of the lower levels, thereby breaking up the mass of
the building. The inset of the fifth floor from all parapets ensures that this top floor
appears recessive element, which does not dominate the appearance of the building
within the streetscene.
Accordingly, the scale and massing of the proposed building is considered to be
proportionate to the site and surrounding scale of development.
Architecture
In terms of the appearance of the development, the proposal seeks to use a high quality
brick finish to the building with recessed areas of metal cladding incorporated
throughout. The proposed window reveals and recessed balconies would provide
articulation to the façade of the building, helping the building to achieve its own identity
in an area which is characterised by a varied pattern of development. The use of
recessed modelling to the façade would add further articulation to the building‟s
appearance and help delineate each of the proposed storeys, while the use of vertical,
portrait shaped windows provides a vertical emphasis to the proposal. Overall, it is
considered that the use of materials, the generous window pattern and deep reveals
results in a robust, coherent and legible face to the building.
The proposed recessed fifth floor would be constructed of metal cladding to distinguish it
from the lower levels. The inset nature and proposed use of cladding at this level is
considered to be an appropriate design feature which breaks up the massing, while
contributing to the visual articulation of the building.
The appearance would be modern and the palette of materials would seek to
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
8
compliment the nearby buildings, but at the same time establish their own character in
the urban environment. Specifically, the use of contrasting metal cladding, blue / grey
brickwork at ground floor and steel railings would contribute to the contemporary layered
treatment of the building. The detailed finish of the external materials would be controlled
by way of an appropriate condition.
Overall, it is considered that the contemporary design and appearance of the
development sits well alongside surrounding buildings and would make a positive
contribution to the wider urban environment.
Layout and Landscaping
The proposed siting of the building appropriately relates to the surrounding development
and allows for a suitable arrangement of hard and soft landscaping at the front of the
site. Specifically, it is intended to provide three wheelchair accessible parking spaces,
accessed via two vehicle crossovers. Pedestrian pathways from St John‟s Road to the
main and side entrances would also be provided. While the landscaping strategy would
principally concentrate on hardsurfacing, a variation in materials, including the use of
semi-permeable surfacing materials interspersed with mature soft landscaping, which
would be secured by condition, would be sufficient to provide an appropriate setting for
the building.
Ground level planting, street trees and a brickwork dwarf wall with railings would be
located along the front property boundary, which would soften the frontage along St
John‟s Road and would enhance the overall appearance of the development. It is also
intended to line the front of the building with soft landscaping which would serve a dual
purpose in creating a soft/ green landscaped corridor and to also provide a defensible
area between the proposed public realm and the ground floor units. Given the site
constraints and town centre location, it is considered that any form of landscape feature
to the front of the building would enhance the development at this location, which at
present has little or no formal landscaped areas.
The proposal would also include a communal amenity area (circa 300sqm) on the
northern and southern side of the rear projection. Specifically, the northern side of the
projection would generally consist of a communal garden while the southern side would
be predominately hardstanding with a seating area. A landscaped defensible barrier has
also been incorporated around the perimeter of the building at the rear of the site to
protect the privacy of the ground floor windows and private amenity space.
The applicant has indicated that 42 cycle parking spaces would be provided within a
metal mesh cycle store located along the rear boundary. The proposal also shows that
the building would have designated refuse stores to accommodate the number of bins
required for the development. The proposal shows a designated holding area for the
bins at the southern side of the building and a bin holding area at the front of the site for
collection day. While the primary bin store is located internal to the building, no details
have been provided regarding the holding area at the front of the site or for the storage
of cycles. A condition of approval will require further details in this respect.
Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the location and provision of refuse stores
would be complaint with Council‟s Refuse Code of Practice.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
9
While the general layout of the amenity space and external areas is acceptable, a
condition of approval would require the submission of further details relating to
landscaping, surfacing materials and the proposed boundary treatment.
Accordingly, the design approach for the proposed new build and external area is
considered to satisfactorily relate to the surrounding development. The architectural
design would provide a building of appropriate proportions which would sit comfortably
within its surroundings. Subject to the use of robust materials, which would be secured
by conditions, it is considered that the building proposed would accord with policies
7.4.B and 7.6.B of the London Plan, policy CS1.B of the CS and policy DM1 of the DMP.
Residential Amenity
Policy 7.6B, subsection D, of The London Plan (2015) states that new buildings and
structures should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and
buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind
and microclimate.
There are no specific policies within the AAP which deal with safeguarding residential
amenity but eludes that development proposals would be required to meet policy DM1 of
the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), which seeks to ensure that
“proposals that would be detrimental to the privacy and amenity of neighbouring
occupiers, or that would fail to achieve satisfactory privacy and amenity for future
occupiers of the development, will be resisted”.
Impact on Neighbouring Amenity
The proposed development would introduce 27 residential units to the application
property. It is likely that up to a maximum of 72 people would occupy the proposed flats.
Given the mixed character of the surrounding area and also the location of the site within
the town centre, it is considered that the proposed development would not unacceptably
exacerbate any existing levels of noise and disturbance experienced within the area. In
this respect, any potential amenity impacts of the proposed development would be
limited to the scale and siting of the proposed building.
The applicant has submitted a sunlight and daylight assessment which has assessed the
potential impact of the proposed development upon the adjoining buildings. The
following buildings were assessed:
Tapley Court (Sheltered residential accommodation)
Gayton Court
Tapley Court
In assessing the impact on Tapley Court, it is noted that the proposal would not intercept
the 45 degree horizontal splay taken from the nearest corners of this neighbour to the
main building. However, the proposed rear projection would maintain a 10.5m separation
from the common boundary with this neighbour. In this respect, no undue loss of light or
outlook would occur to the front or rear facing windows at this property.
Notwithstanding this, Tapley Court includes south facing flank wall windows which are
located approximately 1.8m from the common boundary with the application site. The
Sunlight / Daylight Assessment submitted by the applicant does not confirm the use of
the rooms. While the proposal would introduce an increased separation between the two
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
10
properties (1.1m), the increased height would inevitably increase the sense of enclosure
and low level of amenity currently experienced to these windows. The orientation of the
proposal to the south causes further issues in regards to loss of light. Notwithstanding
this, while it is acknowledged that the proposal would restrict light and outlook to these
windows, a visit to the property confirmed that all flank wall windows facing the
application site either serve non-habitable rooms or are secondary windows to living
rooms. In this respect, these windows are not protected windows and are not required to
be tested under the BRE guidelines.
In terms of overlooking it is acknowledged that the proposal would introduce rear facing
and flank wall windows and roof terraces facing this neighbouring property. Due to the
siting and footprint of the proposal, any overlooking would largely be restricted to the
rear amenity area of this property. Due to the use of the adjoining properties, which
predominately include multi-storey flatted developments and therefore facing towards
communal gardens, and the fact that most proposed windows serve non-habitable
rooms on this flank, the degree of overlooking or loss of privacy would not be
unreasonable. The applicant has also indicated that a number of these windows would
be obscured glazed which would further mitigate any impact. In addition, to ensure there
would be no cross-overlooking between the application site and Plot 1, a condition is
recommended that the flank windows to this property are obscured and non-opening.
No objections have been received from the occupiers of this property.
Gayton Court
In assessing the impact upon Gayton Court to the south, it is noted due to an existing
vehicular driveway adjoining the southern boundary of the site, a minimum distance of
6.8m would be retained between the flank wall of the proposal and the nearest elevation
of Gayton Court. While aligning with the front building line of the application premises,
due to the location of this site on the corner of St John‟s Road and Gayton Road, the
building at Gayton Court follows the curvature of the intersection, resulting in rear
elevation windows facing the application site. These windows would be located
approximately 22m from the southern boundary of the site.
It is noted that representations have been received from residents of this property.
Specifically, concerns were raised in regards to the potential loss of light, outlook and
privacy that would result from the five storey height, the rear projecting element and the
proposed roof terraces.
While these concerns are acknowledged, given the distances maintained between the
proposed development and the property at Gayton Court and also considering the
orientation of this property to the south of the application premises, no undue loss of
daylight or sunlight would occur. The Daylight Sunlight Assessment provided by the
applicant has confirmed that no conflict would result with BRE guidelines.
Furthermore, given the relationship between the buildings, a greater separation distance
is provided between the rear facing windows at Gayton Court and the southern flank wall
windows and terraces within the proposed development. Specifically, due to the location
of the rear projection approximately 7.5m from the common boundary, and the curved
building footprint of Gayton Court, a distance of approximately 30m is retained. While it
is acknowledged that the siting and five storey height of the proposal would have some
degree of impact on the rear facing windows of Gayton Court, given the location of
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
11
properties within a town centre, the established character of development in the area
and the acceptable design of the proposal, any loss of outlook would not result in an
undue harm to the amenity of these occupiers. In addition to this, the separation would
ensure that the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable loss of privacy. It is also
considered that in built up areas within the Town Centre location that some level of
mutual overlooking would exist given the compact nature of the urban built form. While
concerns were raised in regards to the impact of the terraces, a condition of approval will
require that further details regarding the screenings of these areas is provided to the
LPA for approval prior to development commencing.
An additional representation has been received regarding the potential impact of the
proposed development on the bin storage structure at Gayton Court. Given the proposed
development would be wholly contained within the bounds of the site, no damage we be
expected to occur to this refuse storage structure.
No loss of amenity would occur to the properties at the rear of the site given the
separation distance.
Accordingly, the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the
amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and would therefore would accord with the aims
and objectives of policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan (consolidated with
alterations since 2011)(2015), Core Policy CS1B of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012),
policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Plan (2013), and the
adopted SPD: Residential Design Guide (2010).
Future Occupiers
Room Size & Unit Mix
Policy 3.5C of The London Plan requires all new residential development to provide,
amongst other things, accommodation which is adequate to meet people‟s needs. In this
regard, minimum gross internal areas (GIA) are required for different types of
accommodation, and new residential accommodation should have a layout that provides
a functional space. Table 3.3 of The London Plan specifies minimum GIAs for residential
units and advises that these minimum sizes should be exceeded where possible. The
use of these residential unit GIA‟s as minima is also reiterated in Appendix 1 of the
Residential Design Guide SPD. This is supported by policy DM1 of the DMP and policy
AAP13 of the AAP. Further detailed room standards are set out in the Mayors Housing
Supplementary Planning Guidance 2012.
On 25 March 2015 through a written ministerial statement, the Government introduced
new technical housing standards in England and detailed how these would be applied
through planning policy.
The national standards came into effect on 1st October and therefore an application
submitted at this site would be considered against the new national standards instead of
the current London Plan standards. Furthermore, the imposition of any conditions
requiring compliance with specific policy standards relating to new housing would need
to be considered against the national standards.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
12
These standards came into effect on the 1st of October 2015. From this date relevant
London Plan policy and associated guidance in the Housing Supplementary Planning
Guidance (SPG) should be interpreted by reference to the nearest equivalent new
national technical standard. The Mayor intends to adopt the new standards through a
minor alteration to the London Plan. In the interim the Housing Standards Policy
Transition Statement (October 2015) should be applied in assessing new housing
development proposals. This is also set out in the draft Interim Housing SPG.
Therefore from October 2015, policy 3.2 (c) requires that table 3.3 to be substituted with
Table 1 of the nationally described space standards, which is set out in the table below.
Policy 3.8 (c) of the London Plan relating to Housing Choice, from the 1 October should
be interpreted as 90% of homes should meeting building regulations M4 (2) –
„accessible and adopted dwellings‟. Policy 3.8 (d) will require 10% of new housing to
meeting building regulations M4 93) – „wheelchair user dwellings‟.
Bedrooms
1b
2b
3b
4b
5b
6b
Bed spaces
1p
2p
3p
4p
4p
5p
6p
5p
6p
7p
8p
6p
7p
8p
7p
8p
Minimum GIA (sqm)
1 storey
dwellings
39 (37) *
50
61
70
74
86
95
90
99
108
117
103
112
121
116
125
2 storey
dwellings
58
70
79
84
93
102
97
106
115
124
110
119
128
123
132
3 storey
dwellings
Built – in
storage (sqm)
1.0
1.5
2.0
90
99
108
103
112
121
130
116
125
134
129
138
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
13
Proposed Flats
Ground Floor
Flat 1 (two bed, 3 person)
Flat 2 (one bed, 2 person)
Flat 3 (one bed, 2 person)
Flat 4 (one bed, 2 person)
Flat 5 (two bed, 4 person)
First floor
Flat 6 (two bed, 3 person)
Flat 7 (one bed, 2 person)
Flat 8 (one bed, 2 person)
Flat 9 (two bed, 3 person)
Flat 10 (two bed, 4 person)
Flat 11 (one bed, 2 person)
Second Floor
Flat 12 (2 bed, 3 person)
Flat 13 (one bed, two person) single
aspect
Flat 14 (one bed, two person) single
aspect
Flat 15 (2 bed, 4 person)
Flat 16 (one bed, two person) single
aspect
Flat 17 (two bed, 4 person)
Third Floor
Flat 18 (two bed, three person)
Flat 19 (1 bed, 2 person) single aspect
Flat 20 (1 bed, two person) single
aspect
Flat 21 (2 bed, 3 person)
Flat 22 (1 bed, 2 person) single aspect
Flat 23 (2 bed, 4 person)
Fourth Floor
Flat 24 (1 bed, 2 person)
Flat 25 (1 bed, 2 person) single aspect
Flat 26 (2 bed, 3 person)
Flat 27 (2 bed, 3 person)
Gross Internal floor
Area
Private Amenity
Space
65sqm (61sqm)
62sqm (50sqm)
57sqm (50sqm)
59sqm (50sqm)
69sqm (61sqm)
6sqm
5sqm
7sqm
13sqm
13sqm
63sqm (61sqm)
53sqm (50sqm)
53sqm (50sqm)
64sqm (61sqm)
70sqm (70sqm)
51sqm (50sqm)
6sqm
5Ssqm
5sqm
8sqm
7sqm
5sqm
62 sqm (61sqm)
52sqm (50sqm)
6sqm
5sqm
53 sqm (50sqm)
5sqm
64sqm (70sqm)
50sqm (50sqm)
8sqm
5sqm
74sqm (70sqm)
7sqm
63sqm (61sqm)
52sqm (50sqm)
53sqm (50sqm)
6sqm
5sqm
5sqm
64sqm (61sqm)
50sqm (50sqm)
74sqm (70sqm)
8sqm
5sqm
7sqm
54sqm (50sqm)
51sqm (50sqm)
62sqm (61sqm)
69sqm (61sqm)
28sqm
11sqm
29sqm
28sqm
The proposal demonstrates that each of the units would meet the respective minimum
GIA standards and also the internal space standards for individual rooms.
For a scheme of this scale and location in a town centre location which is likely to be
attractive to small family or professional groups, it is considered that the units would be
appropriate and would accord with development plan policies.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
14
Layout, Stacking and Privacy
The primary access to the development would be located centrally, along the St John‟s
Road frontage. The layout of the building would however have two cores, but from the
external appearance the building would still read as the same development. Specifically,
proposed flats 4, 5 (ground floor) and 10, 11 (first floor) located within the rear projection
of the building, would be accessed via a side entrance door on the southern flank
elevation. This entrance would be accessed via a metal gate on the southern side of the
building. Subject to a condition of approval relating to secured by design principles, this
secondary access is considered acceptable.
The proposal plans also demonstrate that 3 wheelchair adaptable units (proposed Flats
3, 4 and 5) would be provided on the ground floor. Proposed flat 3 would have a private
entrance along the front of the building.
An internal staircase and lift would provide access to the upper floor flats (excluding
proposed flats 10 and 11). While the layout of the building requires that the main
circulation areas, in particularly the ground floor, would need to be artificially lit and
mechanically vented, overall, the internal circulation areas would achieve a good
standard of layout for the future occupiers of this development.
In terms of the layout and relationship between the proposed flats, despite some minor
conflicts identified between the horizontal stacking of the units, on balance the layout
would not result in an undue level of noise and disturbance to the future occupiers.
On balance, the layout of the building would provide adequately lit units with an
acceptable level of outlook. However, given the constraints of the site and proposed
design of the building, it is noted that 11 of the units would be single aspect. Whilst the
preference would be for dual aspect units, the proposed layout and orientation of the
single aspect units are considered to receive adequate levels of natural daylight and an
acceptable level of outlook. Specifically, with the exception of proposed flats 16 and 22,
these units are one bedroom and would have west facing aspects towards St John‟s
Road. Proposed units 16 and 20 are also considered acceptable given their habitable
room windows have south facing aspects. In this respect, it is considered that the single
aspect nature of this development would be off-set by the good internal layout,
circulation and orientation for each of the units.
In terms of the privacy of individual units, it is acknowledged that the T shape footprint of
the proposed building has the ability to give rise to overlooking between the rear facing
windows of the flats located within the main building and flank wall windows / roof
terraces of the flats located within the rear projection. Specifically, the relationship
between proposed flats 1 and 4, 9 and 10, 6 and 10, 14 and 16, 21 and 22 would exhibit
some degree of overlooking. However, given the layout of the building and internal
arrangement of the flats, overlooking between the habitable rooms of these units would
generally occur at oblique angles only, and would not result in direct overlooking. Where
rear facing windows are oriented towards the roof terraces of other units, it is considered
that privacy to these areas could be maintained through the inclusion of privacy screens.
Furthermore, it is noted that the ground floor windows at the rear of the building front
communal amenity areas and therefore the level of privacy maintained to these windows
would to some degree be affected. While the proposal plans demonstrate the inclusion
of defensible planting outside these windows, further detail is required in this respect to
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
15
ensure that the defensible barrier to sufficient in protecting the privacy of these
residents. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that this relationship it not uncommon
in flatted developments and would not result in a substandard level of accommodation to
these residents.
In terms of private amenity space, all balconies within the front elevation of the building
would be recessed and in general, the return stepped element of these balconies would
provide screening for these private amenity areas. As previously discussed, the
projecting rear balconies would include obscured privacy screens. Where there are
instances when two balconies adjoin (top floor), these would be provided with privacy
screens to protect the privacy of the occupiers of each respective unit. The detail for the
privacy screens will be conditioned to ensure that an appropriate form of material is used
and that the correct level of obscurity is achieved.
Outdoor Amenity Space
Policy DM1 of the DMP seeks to inter alia ensure that development proposals provide an
appropriate form of useable outdoor space. This is further reinforced under paragraph
4.64 of the SPD requires that residential development should provide appropriate
amenity space. In case of town centre locations, alternative forms of outdoor amenity
such as balconies should be explored.
Each of the units would have access to a private balcony area. The balconies would all
meet or exceed the minimum 5sqm set out in the Mayors SPG and each is shown to
have a minimum width and depth of 1.5m. In addition to this, the proposal would include
a landscaped communal garden within the site. The town centre location also provides
other forms of amenity. Subject to a condition of approval requiring further detail
regarding the communal amenity area, the proposed development is considered to be
acceptable in this regard.
In conclusion, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions
aforementioned, it is considered that the proposed development would provide an
acceptable standard of accommodation for the future occupiers, in compliance with
policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan (consolidated with alterations since
2011)(2015), policies DM1 and DM30 of the DMP and the Council‟s adopted
Supplementary Planning Document „Residential Design Guide (2010)‟ in that respect.
Accessibility
Policy DM2 of the DMP and policies 3.5 and 3.8 of The London Plan (consolidated with
alterations since 2011)(2015) seek to ensure that all new housing is built to „Lifetime
Homes‟ standards. Furthermore, The London Plan policy 7.2 requires all future
development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion.
Policy CS1.K of the Harrow Core Strategy requires all new dwellings to comply with the
requirements of Lifetime Homes. Supplementary Planning Document Accessible Homes
2010 (SPD) outlines the necessary criteria for a „Lifetime Home‟.
While the above policies require compliance with Lifetime Home Standards, in October
2015 these standards were replaced by New National Standards which require 90% of
homes to meet Building regulation M4 (2) - „accessible and adaptable dwellings‟.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
16
Notwithstanding this, in accordance with Lifetime Homes Standards, the applicant‟s
Design and Access Statement confirms that all residential units would be Lifetime
Homes and 3 units would be wheelchair homes. This meets the minimum 10%
wheelchairs homes set out in the adopted policies.
It is considered that overall the applicant has demonstrated that the internal layout of the
wheelchair units would be compliant with the adopted policies and further detailed layout
of the internal units can be secured by way of a suitable condition.
While compliance with the Lifetime Homes Standards is acknowledged, a condition of
approval is required to ensure that the proposed development would meet regulation M4
(2) of the building Regulations which would secure an appropriate standard for future
occupiers and make the units accessible to all.
Accordingly, subject to compliance with this condition, it is considered that the proposed
accommodation would be satisfactory and as such would comply with policy 3.5 of The
London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011)(2015), standard 5.4.1 of the
Housing SPG (2012).
Affordable Housing
Policy CS1.J of the Harrow Core Strategy 2012 sets an aim for 40% of new housing
development in the borough to be affordable housing and states that the Council will
seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on all development sites
with a capacity to provide for ten or more units having regard to various criteria and the
viability of the scheme. Such requirements are in line with London Plan policy 3.12.A/B
which requires the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing to be provided. The
reasoned justification to policy 3.12.A/B of The London Plan 2015 states that boroughs
should take a reasonable and flexible approach to securing affordable housing on a site
by site basis. As noted under section 1 of the appraisal, the consolidated London Plan
2015 designates Harrow and Wealdstone as an Opportunity Area and seeks to increase
the minimum annual housing target for Harrow from 350 to 593 per annum.
Policy 3.11A of The London Plan sets out that of the 60% of the affordable housing
should be for social and affordable rented accommodation and 40% for intermediate rent
or sale of the overall affordable housing provision on any given development site. Policy
3.11B sets out that individual boroughs should set out in their LDF the amount of
affordable housing provision needed. This is reinforced under policy AAP13(C) which
states that within Wealdstone Central sub area, an affordable tenure split which favours
intermediate housing will be sought. Throughout the rest of the Heart of Harrow an
affordable housing tenure split of 60% social/affordable rent homes and 40%
intermediate homes are required.
The applicant is Network Housing Group (NHG), a Housing Association operating within
London and the South East. According to the supporting documents submitted, Network
Housing Group works across 40 boroughs and currently manages over 18,000 homes,
primarily in London and Hertfordshire. NHG provides housing in a wide mix of tenures,
including private rent, intermediate rent, shared equity, shared ownership and private
sales. NHG also own and manage over 1,500 homes specifically for older people and
those with physical and sensory impairment, as well as providing flexicare, sheltered
housing and extra care housing. Network Housing is one of the Council‟s approved
partners in bringing forward essential housing development within the Borough. The
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
17
Council‟s Housing Enabling Team has confirmed that NHG are consistently delivering
high numbers of affordable housing for rent and shared ownership.
The proposal plans and supporting documents indicate the provision of 11 affordable
units, representing 40% of the overall housing scheme. Specifically, the scheme
provides the following:
Flat 1 (2-bed, 3 person): shared ownership;
Flat 2 (1-bed, 2 person): shared ownership;
Flat 3 (1 bed, 2 person): shared ownership:
Flat 4 (1 bed, 2 person): affordable rent;
Flat 5 (2 bed, 3 person): affordable rent;
Flat 6 (2 bed, 3 person): shared ownership;
Flat 7 (1 bed, 2 person): shared ownership;
Flat 8 (1 bed, 2 person): shared ownership;
Flat 9: (2 bed, 3 person): shared ownership;
Flat 10 (2 bed, 4 person): affordable rent; and,
Flat 11 (1 bed, 2 person): affordable rent.
If the scheme delivered 40% affordable housing based on total number of units (27), this
would give 11 units to affordable, of which if applying the policy compliant split of 60/40,
this would give 7 affordable units and 4 shared ownership units. As it stands, the
proposal would provide 4 affordable rented and 7 shared ownership units. This reverses
the policy complaint split of a 60:40 ratio and results in 2 affordable rented units less
than a policy complaint scheme.
Following discussions with the applicant it is acknowledged that NHG has applied for a
GLA grant to deliver the scheme as 100% affordable housing. While the GLA grant is
already in place for the scheme, this is subject to NHG delivering the proposed units by
March 2018. The GLA grant will be drawn down in stages, starting with 50% at start on
site. Accordingly, while the proposal submitted within this planning application includes a
40% affordable housing provision, this is due to the requirement of presenting a
financially viable scheme prior to obtaining the funds from the GLA at start on site. In this
context, the proposed development, while falling marginally short of affordable rented
units within the 40% of affordable units proposed, would deliver a level of affordable
housing well in excess of the minimum 40%.
Notwithstanding this, the design of the building ensures that the proposed 4 affordable
rented units are contained within a self-contained core for management / maintenance
and service charge reasons. Specifically, proposed units 4, 5, 10 and 11 would be
accessed via a secondary access door on the southern flank elevation of the rear
projection. An internal stairwell provides access to units 10 and 11 located on the first
floor. Furthermore, it would be unfeasible to provide additional affordable rented units
within this core at second floor, as this would require lift access, which would
significantly impact upon the service charge of these units.
Furthermore, the applicant has confirmed with Harrow Housing that two of the ground
floor affordable rented units would be fully fitted and delivered to full wheelchair standard
i.e. ready for nominees to occupy without major retrofitting. This bears material weight in
favour of the proposed tenure mix as it would meet specific identified housing need and
is supported by Harrow Housing. The majority of planning applications are approved with
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
18
the minimum policy requirement to provide a proportion of homes that are capable of
future adaptation. The direct delivery in this case will indemnify the Council from
additional cost and nomination delay in retrofitting specific internal features needed to
make such units become fully wheelchair accessible, such as rise and fall kitchens and
walk in shower rooms etc. This aspect of the scheme exceeds the development plan
requirement and therefore holds considerable positive weight in favour of the planning
application.
The Council‟s Housing Enabling Team are satisfied with the level of affordable housing
tenure split being proposed.
Whilst it is noted that the proposed tenure split would not strictly comply with the 60/40
tenure split set out in the London Plan and the AAP, it is concluded that the level of
affordable housing at 40% which includes two wheelchair fitted affordable rented units,
which would be secured by a section 106 agreement, would meet policy requirements,
while the higher proportion of shared ownership housing would meet the key objective of
the Housing Zone to deliver low cost home ownership. Furthermore, subject to the final
approval of the GLA affordable homes grant, the applicant is endeavouring to deliver the
whole scheme as affordable housing which would deliver a level of affordable housing
well in excess of the policy requirement.
In this context, it is considered necessary for a review clause to be included as part of
the section 106 agreement. Specifically, should the scheme not secure in excess of 40%
affordable units at the time of commencement of works on site, a review of the viability
and associated tenure split will be carried out. Based on the findings of this review, the
tenure split of the 40% affordable units will be agreed by the Council.
This review clause will be triggered at commencement of works on site as the applicant
has indicated that 50% of the GLA grant would be received at this time. Accordingly,
while the applicant is not yet able to confirm that the scheme would present in excess of
40% affordable units, this can be confirmed at start of works.
Based on the above factors, it is considered that the development would accord with
policies 3.11 and 3.12.A/B of The London Plan 2015, policy CS1.J of the Harrow Core
Strategy 2012 and policy AAP13 of the AAP.
Traffic, Parking & Servicing
The application site is located within Harrow Metropolitan Centre, which has the highest
PTAL rating (6a). The subject site is located within a control parking zone operating from
Mondays to Saturdays 8.30am to 6.30pm. The applicant has provided a transport
assessment (TA) in support of their proposal, which concludes that the proposal would
give rise to no highway or transportation reasons to object to the proposal.
The TA notes that the existing level of on-site parking serving the vacant hotel to be at
20 spaces (8 parks to the front of the site and 12 to the rear). The proposal seeks to
redevelop the site to construct a purpose built apartment building (27 units). The
proposal would be a car free development with the exception of three wheelchair spaces
at the front of the site.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
19
In general, within town centre locations that have a high level of accessibility to public
transport, a car free development would be highly supported. The London Plan and
Borough policies are geared towards promoting this approach and towards reducing onsite parking provision in such a central location and the desire of achieving a model shift
away from private car ownership. Notwithstanding this, given the allocation of wheelchair
units within the development, it would be reasonable to offer a set amount of car parking
to be tied to these units.
The proposal includes the closure of the existing vehicle crossover on St John‟s Road
and the creation of two new crossovers to serve the development. No issues are raised
in this respect.
The applicant has shown the provision of secure cycle storage (48 spaces) for the
occupiers of the site in line with the requirements set out in the London Plan. It is
envisaged that this level of provision would encourage residents to use an alternative
mode of travel to the private car. While the location of the cycle storage at the rear of the
site is considered to be acceptable, further details regarding the cycle shelter would be
required by way of a condition of approval.
Refuse collection and servicing would take place from St Johns Road as per existing.
Refuse will be stored within the development and on collection days will be brought
forward to a management area towards the front car park, and within 10m of the refuse
collection vehicle in line with the Council‟s Refuse Code of Practice.
The Council‟s Highways Authority are satisfied with the level of parking being proposed
and welcome the level of cycle parking being provided.
It is therefore considered that the development would not result in any significant
increase in traffic movements from the site or unreasonable impacts on highway safety
and convenience, and subject to safeguarding conditions would therefore accord with
policies DM26 and DM42 of the DMP (2013).
Development and Flood Risk
The site is located within a Critical Drainage Area and therefore, the Council‟s Drainage
Team has also advised that the detail drainage design be secured by condition. In this
regard, and subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, the proposal would give rise
to no conflict with the above stated policies.
Sustainable Build and Design
Policy 5.1 of The London Plan (2015) seeks to achieve an overall reduction in London‟s
carbon dioxide emissions of 60 per cent by 2025. For „major‟ developments (i.e. 10 or
more dwellings) Policy 5.2A/B of The London Plan (2015) sets out the „lean, clean,
green‟ approach to sustainability, which is expanded in London Plan policies 5.3A, 5.7B,
5.9B/C, 5.10C and 5.11A. The London Plan carbon dioxide reduction target for
residential and non-domestic buildings during the period 2013-2016 is to achieve a 40%
improvement on the 2010 Building Regulations (BR) (which equates to 35% above 2013
BR).
Core Policy CS1.T and policy AAP4 of the AAP requires development proposals to
incorporate sustainable building design and layout.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
20
The applicant has submitted an Energy Statement prepared by Bespoke Builder
Services Ltd. This statement provides an overview of the energy strategy in
consideration of the site context, energy requirements and local priorities. Specifically,
the proposed development has been designed to include photovoltaic solar panels at a
10 degree angle across the roof and the installation of condensing combination gas
boilers to deliver the space and water heating.
The applicant has indicated that due to the small scale of the development photovoltaic
panels represented the only feasible option in order to maximise carbon dioxide savings.
A review of the possible maximum CO2 savings from the PV panels indicates a value of
17.23%, falling significantly short of the London Plan Target Emission Rate (TER) of
40% improvement to the 2010 Building Regulations.
The Energy Report concludes that the annual surplus carbon emissions can be offset in
line with Local Authority carbon dioxide offset price to determine the required cash-inlieu contribution. The findings of this report have been reviewed by the Council‟s Building
Control Manager and considered to be fair. In order to offset, the shortfall in target
carbon reductions, a financial contribution will be secured towards the development of
the Green Grid, where the Council can achieve carbon reductions for the Borough.
Statement of Community Involvement
The NPPF, Localism Act and the Council‟s Statement of Community Involvement
encourage developers, in the cause of major applications such as this to undertake
public consultation exercise prior to submission of a formal application.
The Council also sent out letters of consultation to local residents in the surrounding
area inviting them to make representations on the proposed development.
The applicant has sought to encourage public consultation in respect the proposal in line
with the guidance set out in the NPPF and the Localism Act.
Planning Obligations
The heads of terms of the section 106 agreement have been set out above. These are
considered necessary to make the application acceptable, in accordance with policy 3.2
of The London Plan 2015 and policies CS1.Z/AA and CS2.Q of the Harrow Core
Strategy 2012.
Equalities
Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 created the public sector equality duty.
Section149 states:(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need
to:
(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is
prohibited by or under this Act;
(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic and persons who do not share it;
(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic
and persons who do not share it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
21
When making policy decisions, the Council must take account of the equality duty and in
particular any potential impact on protected groups. It is not considered that there are
any equality impacts as part of this application.
S17 Crime & Disorder Act 1998
Policies 7.3.B and 7.13.B of The London Plan and policy AAP 4 of the AAP require all
new developments to have regard to safety and the measures to reduce crime in the
design of development proposal.
The applicant has not specifically referred to the prevention of crime in the design
proposal, other than that the proposal would be built to Secure by Design principles. The
main entrances to each of the buildings would benefit from natural surveillance. The
ground floor flats have been designed with defensible area to ensure security and
privacy. While the public pedestrian route through the site would be controlled by gates
at either end, no details have been provided regarding the restricted access to these
entrances. Furthermore, given the secondary entrance at the rear of the building, it is
considered that the pathway to this access would need to include some form of lighting.
Accordingly, it should be demonstrated that the development would accord with
„Secured by Design‟ principles. It is considered that this requirement could be secured
by condition. Accordingly, and subject to a condition, it is considered that the proposed
development would not increase crime risk or safety in the locality, thereby according
with the policies stated above.
Consultation Responses
 The proposal is an over development of the site.
The proposed redevelopment to provide 27 units is considered appropriate in the
context of surrounding development and the location of the site within a town
centre. All of the proposed units meet the minimum floor space standards.

The proposed five storey height is not in keeping with the surrounding area.
Given the appropriate design of the proposed building, which includes an inset
fifth floor level, the overall height and massing of the building is considered to be
proportionate to the site and surrounding development.

The rear projection would impact the amenity to Gayton Court by way of a loss of
privacy, outlook and light.
Please refer to section 3 for a full assessment of the impacts on Gayton Court.
This assessment found that no undue harm would result to the amenity of Gayton
Court residents due to the separation provided between the properties and the
appropriate design of the proposal.

The proposed floor area of the flats and individual rooms are too small.
Please refer to section 3. Each of the flats and individual rooms meet the
minimum GIA of the National Housing Standards.

The proposal would have an impact on the bin storage shelter for Gayton Court.
The proposed development would be wholly contained within the bounds of the
application site. No damage would be expected to occur to the refuse storage
shelter of Gayton Court.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
22

The proposed balconies should include solid screening.
A condition of approval has been attached to this decision requiring that the
applicant submit further details of the proposed terrace screening prior to
development commending on site.

The proposal would result in an increased pressure on parking and traffic congestion.
The Highways Authority has raised no objection to the proposal. This site is
located within an area of excellent access to public transport.
CONCLUSION
The proposed redevelopment of the site would provide a high quality residential
development which would be a positive contribution to the town centre environment. The
site is currently occupied by a dated hotel which given its size, is afforded no protection
in the adopted development plan. The redevelopment of the site would enhance the
urban environment in terms of material presence, attractive streetscape and makes a
positive contribution to the local area, in terms of quality and character.
The proposed redevelopment of the site would result in a modern, contemporary design
that responds positively to the local context, and would provide appropriate living
conditions which would be accessible for all future occupiers of the development.
The layout and orientation of the buildings and separation distance to neighbouring
properties is considered to be satisfactory to protect the amenities of the neighbouring
occupiers.
For these reasons, weighing up the development plan policies and proposals, and other
material considerations including comments received in response to notification and
consultation as set out above, this application is recommended for grant.
CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission.
REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following documents and plans: 1502_P-01; 1502 P-02 Rev E; 1502 P-03 Rev B; 1502
P-04 Rev B; 1502 P-05 Rev B; 1502 P-06 Rev B; 1502_P-07 Rev A; 1502 P-08 Rev C;
1502 P-09 Rev C; 1502_P-12 Rev A; 1502_P-13 Rev A; 1502 P-14; 1502 P-15 Rev A;
CM/151127/2ND; CM/151127/GND; CM/151127/1ST; existing south west elevation;
existing south east elevation; Design & Access Statement; Townscape & Design
Assessment; Transport Statement; Preliminary Ecological Appraisal; Geo-environmental
Desk Study; Bat Presence / Likely Absence Survey; Energy Statement; Planning
Statement; Daylight & Sunlight Assessment; Drainage Report.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, the development of
hereby approved shall not progress beyond 150mm above ground level until samples of
the materials (or appropriate specification) to be used in the construction of the external
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
23
surfaces noted below have been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local
planning authority:
a)
facing materials for the building
b)
windows/ doors
c)
balcony screens including balustrade detail and privacy screens
d)
boundary fencing including all pedestrian/ access gates
e)
ground surfacing
f)
external materials of the proposed bin and cycle storage
g)
external seating
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed and shall
be retained as such thereafter.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the locality and to ensure a satisfactory form
of development in accordance with policy 7.4B of The London Plan 2011, policy CS.1B
of the Harrow Core Strategy and policies AAP 1 and AAP 4 of the Harrow and
Wealdstone Area Action Plan 2013. Details are required PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT BEYOND 150MM ABOVE GROUND LEVEL
to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid potentially unenforceable
conditions.
4 The refuse bins shall be stored at all times, other than on collection days, in the
designated refuse storage area, as shown on the approved drawing plans.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the surrounding area, in
accordance with policy 7.4.B of The London Plan 2011 and ensure a high standard of
residential quality in accordance with Policy AAP 4 of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area
Action Plan (2013).
5 The development hereby permitted shall be constructed to the specifications of:
“Part M, M4 (2), Category 2: Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings” of the Building
Regulations 2013 and thereafter retained in that form.
REASON: To ensure that the development is capable of meeting „Accessible and
Adaptable Dwellings‟ standards in accordance with policies 3.5 and 3.8 of The London
Plan, policy CS1.K of The Harrow Core Strategy 2012 and policies DM1 and DM2 of the
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
6 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, in addition to those
windows indicated as obscurely glazed in the northern flank wall of the approved
development, the flank windows of the unit shown as Plot 1 on the ground floor shall:
a) be of purpose-made obscure glass,
b) be permanently fixed closed below a height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level,
and shall thereafter be retained in that form.
REASON: To ensure the development would not have any undue overlooking of the
neighbouring property to the north, Tapley Court, in accordance with policy DM1 of the
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
24
7 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a
Construction Method Statement & Logistics Plan has been submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the local planning authority. The Method Statement shall provide for:
a) detailed timeline for the phases and implementation of the development
b) demolition method statement
c)
the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
d) loading and unloading of plant and materials;
e) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
f)
measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and
g) scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction
works.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Method
Statement & Logistics Plan, or any amendment or variation to it as may be agreed in
writing by the local planning authority.
REASON: To minimise the impacts of construction upon the amenities of neighbouring
occupiers, in accordance with Policy DM1 of the Local Plan, and to ensure that
development does not adversely affect safety on the transport network in accordance
with Policy 6.3 of the London Plan and Policy DM43 of the Local Plan.
Details are required PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT to ensure a
satisfactory form of development.
8 The development hereby approved shall not commence beyond 150mm above
ground level, until details of works for the disposal of surface water, including surface
water attenuation and storage, have been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the
local planning authority. The submitted details shall include green roofs, storage tanks,
investigation of (and, if feasible, proposals for) rainwater harvesting and measures to
prevent water pollution. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
details so agreed and shall be retained as such thereafter.
REASON: To ensure that the development achieves an appropriate greenfield run-off
rate in this critical drainage area and to ensure that opportunities drainage measures
that contribute to biodiversity and the efficient use of mains water are exploited, in
accordance with London Policies 5.11, 5.13 & 5.15 of the London Plan (2015) and Policy
AAP 9 of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (2013). Details are required
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT BEYOND 150MM ABOVE
GROUND LEVEL to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid potentially
unenforceable conditions.
9 The development hereby approved shall not commence beyond 150mm above
ground level until a foul water drainage strategy, detailing any on and/or off site works
that may be needed to dispose of foul water from the development and to safeguard the
development from foul water flooding, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by
the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied until the drainage
strategy, including any on and/or off site works so agreed, has been implemented.
REASON:
To ensure that there would be adequate infrastructure in place for the
disposal of foul water arising from the development, in accordance with Policy 5.14 of
the London Plan (2015) and Harrow Core Strategy Policy CS1, and to ensure that the
development would be resistant and resilient to foul water flooding in accordance with
Policy AAP 9 of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (2013). Details are
required PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT BEYOND 150MM
ABOVE GROUND LEVEL to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid
potentially unenforceable conditions.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
25
10 The development hereby approved shall not progress beyond 150mm above ground
level until a scheme for the hard and soft landscaping of the development, to include
details of the planting, hard surfacing materials, raised planters and external seating, has
been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. Soft
landscaping works shall include: planting plans (at a scale not less than 1:100), written
specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken and schedules of plants,
noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities and an implementation
programme. The hard surfacing details shall include samples to show the texture and
colour of the materials to be used and information about their sourcing/manufacturer.
The hard and soft landscaping details shall demonstrate how they would contribute to
privacy between the approved private terraces and the public pedestrian route, and
communal garden areas. The scheme shall also include circulation areas, minor
artefacts and structures (such as play equipment, furniture, temporary refuse storage
area and signs). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme so
agreed and shall be retained as such thereafter.
REASON: To ensure that the development makes provision for hard and soft
landscaping which contributes to the creation of a high quality, accessible, safe and
attractive public realm and to ensure a high standard of design, layout and amenity in
accordance with policy 7.4B of The London Plan (2015), policy CS.1B of the Harrow
Core Strategy (2012) and policies AAP 1 and AAP 4 of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area
Action Plan (2013). Details are required PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT BEYOND 150MM ABOVE GROUND LEVEL to ensure a satisfactory
form of development and avoid potentially unenforceable conditions.
11 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall
be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the
building, or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any existing or
new trees or shrubs which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the
development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be
replaced in the next planting season, with others of a similar size and species, unless
the local authority agrees any variation in writing.
REASON: To ensure that the development makes provision for hard and soft
landscaping which contributes to the creation of a high quality, accessible, safe and
attractive public realm and to ensure a high standard of design, layout and amenity in
accordance with policy 7.4B of The London Plan (2015), policy CS.1B of the Harrow
Core Strategy and policies AAP 1 and AAP 4 of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action
Plan (2013).
12 No site works or development shall commence until details of the levels of the
building(s), road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to the adjoining land and highway(s), and
any other changes proposed in the level of the site, have been submitted to, and agreed
in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the details so agreed.
REASON: To ensure that the works are carried out at suitable levels in relation to the
highway and adjoining properties in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring
residents, the appearance of the development, drainage, gradient of access and future
highway improvement in accordance with Policies AAP 1, AAP 4, AAP 9, and AAP19 of
the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (2013) and policies DM 1 and DM 42 of
the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). Details are required
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT to ensure a satisfactory form
of development and avoid potentially unenforceable conditions.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
26
13 Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to construction of the development beyond
150mm above ground level, details of privacy screens to be installed to the balconies
have first been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed and shall be
retained as such thereafter.
REASON: To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of amenity for
future occupiers of this and the neighbouring buildings, in accordance with Policy 7.6 of
the London Plan (2015) and Policy DM 1 of the Development Management Policies
Local Plan (2013). Details are required PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT BEYOND 150MM ABOVE GROUND LEVEL to ensure a satisfactory
form of development and avoid potentially unenforceable conditions.
14 Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, additional details of a
strategy for the provision of communal facilities for television reception (eg. aerials,
dishes and other such equipment) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the specific size and location of all
equipment. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the
building and shall be retained thereafter. No other television reception equipment shall
be introduced onto the walls or the roof of the building without the prior written approval
of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: In order to prevent the proliferation of individual television reception items on
the building which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the building and
the visual amenity of the area, thereby according with policy 7.4.B of The London Plan
(consolidated with alterations since 2011)(2015) and policy DM1 of the Harrow
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required PRIOR TO
OCCUPATION as the approval of details beyond this point would be likely to be
unenforceable.
15 Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted, measures to minimise the
risk of crime in a visually acceptable manner and meet the specific security needs of the
development shall be installed in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed
in writing by the local planning authority. Any such measures should follow the design
principles set out in the relevant design guides published on the Secured by Design
website: http://www.securedbydesign.com/guides/index.aspx.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed and shall
be retained as such thereafter.
REASON: In the interests of creating safer and more sustainable communities and to
safeguard amenity by reducing the risk of crime and the fear of crime, in accordance
with Policies 7.3.B and 7.13.B of The London Plan (2015) and policy AAP 4 of the
Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (2013), and Section 17 of the Crime &
Disorder Act 1998.
16 Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of the lighting of
all public realm and other external areas (including buildings) within the site has been
submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed and shall be retained as
such thereafter.
REASON: To ensure that the development incorporates lighting that contributes to
Secured by Design principles and achieves a high standard of residential quality in
accordance with Policy AAP 4 of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (2013).
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
27
Details are required PRIOR TO OCCUPATION to ensure a satisfactory form of
development and avoid potentially unenforceable conditions.
17 The development hereby permitted shall be constructed and operated in accordance
with the details contained with the approved Energy Statement.
REASON: To ensure that the development makes appropriate provision for the
minimisation of carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with Policy 5.2 of the London
Plan (2015) and policy DM12 of the Harrow Development Management Policies (2013).
INFORMATIVES:
1 INFORMATIVE:
The following the policies are relevant to this decision:
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
The London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011) 2015
Policies 2.13, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 3.11, 3.12, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12,
5.13, 5.18, 6.3, 6.9, 6.13, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.8, 7.13, 7.14, 7.15,
7.18, 8.2.
The Harrow Core Strategy (2012)
Core Policies CS1
Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (2013)
Policies: AAP 1, AAP 4, AAP 5, AAP 9, AAP 11, AAP 13, AAP 19, AAP 20
Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013)
Policies DM 1, DM 2, DM 7, DM 10, DM 12, DM 14, DM 28, DM 42, DM 49
Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Design Guide (2010)
Supplementary Planning Document – Accessible Homes (2010)
Code of Practice for Storage and Collection of Refuse and Materials for
Recycling in Domestic Properties (2008).
Housing: Supplementary Planning Guidance (2012)
2 CONSIDERATE CONTRACTOR CODE OF PRACTICE
The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements in the attached Considerate
Contractor Code of Practice, in the interests of minimising any adverse effects arising
from building operations, and in particular the limitations on hours of working.
3 PARTY WALL ACT:
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify and obtain formal
agreement from adjoining owner(s) where the building owner intends to carry out
building work which involves:
1. work on an existing wall shared with another property;
2. building on the boundary with a neighbouring property;
3. excavating near a neighbouring building,
and that work falls within the scope of the Act.
Procedures under this Act are quite separate from the need for planning permission or
building regulations approval.
“The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: Explanatory booklet” is available free of charge from:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
28
Communities and Local Government Publications, PO Box 236, Wetherby,
LS23 7NB
Please quote Product code: 02 BR 00862 when ordering
Also available for download from the CLG website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/133214.
pdf
Tel: 0870 1226 236
Fax: 0870 1226 237
Textphone: 0870 1207 405
E-mail: communities@twoten.com
4 COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING CONDITIONS
IMPORTANT: Compliance With Planning Conditions Requiring Submission and
Approval of Details Before Development Commences
- You will be in breach of planning permission if you start development without
complying with a condition requiring you to do something before you start. For example,
that a scheme or details of the development must first be approved by the Local
Planning Authority.
- Carrying out works in breach of such a condition will not satisfy the requirement to
commence the development within the time permitted.
- Beginning development in breach of a planning condition will invalidate your planning
permission.
- If you require confirmation as to whether the works you have carried out are
acceptable, then you should apply to the Local Planning Authority for a certificate of
lawfulness.
5 INFORMATIVE:
The applicant is advised that any window in the flank elevation of the development
hereby permitted will not prejudice the future outcome of any application which may be
submitted in respect of the adjoining property.
6 INFORMATIVE:
Please be advised that approval of this application (either by Harrow Council, or
subsequently by PINS if allowed on Appeal following a Refusal by Harrow Council) will
attract a liability payment of £37,625 of Community Infrastructure Levy. This charge has
been levied under Greater London Authority CIL charging schedule and s211 of the
Planning Act 2008.
Harrow Council as CIL collecting authority on commencement of development will be
collecting the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
Your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £300,160 for the
application, based on the levy rate for Harrow of £35/sqm and the stated increase in
floorspace of 1,075 sqm.
You are advised to visit the planningportal website where you can download the
appropriate document templates.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil
7 INFORMATIVE:
Harrow has a Community Infrastructure Levy which will apply Borough wide for certain
uses of over 100sqm gross internal floor space. The CIL has been examined by the
Planning Inspectorate and found to be legally compliant. It will be charged from the 1st
October 2013. Any planning application determined after this date will be charged
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
29
accordingly.
Harrow's Charges are:
Residential (Use Class C3) - £110 per sqm;
Hotels (Use Class C1), Residential Institutions except Hospitals, (Use Class C2),
Student Accommodation, Hostels and HMOs (Sui generis)- £55 per sqm;
Retail (Use Class A1), Financial & Professional Services (Use Class A2), Restaurants
and Cafes (Use Class A3) Drinking Establishments (Use Class A4) Hot Food
Takeaways (Use Class A5) - £100 per sqm
All other uses - Nil.
The Harrow CIL contribution for this development is £118,250.00
8 INFORMATIVE:
Notwithstanding the note on your submitted plan(s), this decision has been made on the
basis of measurements scaled from the plan(s), unless a dimensioned measurement
overrides it.
Plan Nos: 1502_P-01; 1502 P-02 Rev E; 1502 P-03 Rev B; 1502 P-04 Rev B; 1502 P-05
Rev B; 1502 P-06 Rev B; 1502_P-07 Rev A; 1502 P-08 Rev C; 1502 P-09 Rev C;
1502_P-12 Rev A; 1502_P-13 Rev A; 1502 P-14; 1502 P-15 Rev A; CM/151127/2ND;
CM/151127/GND; CM/151127/1ST; existing south west elevation; existing south east
elevation; Design & Access Statement; Townscape & Design Assessment; Transport
Statement; Preliminary Ecological Appraisal; Geo-environmental Desk Study; Bat
Presence / Likely Absence Survey; Energy Statement; Planning Statement; Daylight &
Sunlight Assessment; Drainage Report.
9 REMOVE YELLOW SITE NOTICE
Plan Nos: 1502_P-01; 1502 P-02 Rev E; 1502 P-03 Rev B; 1502 P-04 Rev B; 1502 P05 Rev B; 1502 P-06 Rev B; 1502_P-07 Rev A; 1502 P-08 Rev C; 1502 P-09 Rev C;
1502_P-12 Rev A; 1502_P-13 Rev A; 1502 P-14; 1502 P-15 Rev A; CM/151127/2ND;
CM/151127/GND; CM/151127/1ST; existing south west elevation; existing south east
elevation; Design & Access Statement; Townscape & Design Assessment; Transport
Statement; Preliminary Ecological Appraisal; Geo-environmental Desk Study; Bat
Presence / Likely Absence Survey; Energy Statement; Planning Statement; Daylight &
Sunlight Assessment; Drainage Report.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
30
KEMPSFORD HOUSE HOTEL, 21 ST JOHNS ROAD, HARROW
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
31
ITEM NO:
1/02
ADDRESS:
11-17 HINDES ROAD, HARROW
REFERENCE:
P/4225/15
DESCRIPTION:
REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE A THREE AND FOUR
STOREY BUILDING FOR TWENTY-NINE RETIREMENT LIVING
(CATEGORY II SHELTERED HOUSING) APARTMENTS FOR
THE ELDERLY; PARKING; PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL
AMENITY SPACE, LANDSCAPING; BIN STORAGE
WARD:
GREENHILL
APPLICANT:
YOURLIFE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD
AGENT:
THE PLANNING BUREAU
CASE OFFICER:
CALLUM SAYERS
EXPIRY DATE:
02/11/2015
GRANT planning permission for the development set outlined the application and
submitted plans subject to:
 Conditions set out at the end of this report;
 The completion of a Section 106 agreement with the heads of terms set out below
(subject to further negotiation and agreement).
 Authority to be given to the Divisional Director of Planning in consultation with the
Director of Legal and Governance Services for the sealing of the Section 106
agreement and to agree any minor amendments to the conditions or the legal
agreement.
Affordable Housing
Review of sales values on occupation of 80% of the units with 80% of any surplus on
sales above the levels in the submitted Financial Viability Assessment to be provided any
a financial contribution towards Affordable Housing
(i) Legal Fees: Payment of Harrow Council‟s reasonable costs in the preparation of the
legal agreement;
REASON
The proposed development would replace a school on the site which has been
demonstrated as being a site that is not being required or suitable to continue as an
educational use on the site, with no firm interest in another D1 user to occupy the site.
The use as a care home would make a contribution to the housing stock of the borough,
as well as increasing housing choice within the borough. The proposed land use would
conform with the surrounding residential land use, would have satisfactory access to
public transport links and local shops. Furthermore, the proposed development would
provide a development with a high quality design and appearance. The proposed
development would therefore accord with Development Plan policies.
Recommendation B
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
32
That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 17 th July 2016 then it is
recommended to delegate the decision to REFUSE planning permission to the Divisional
Director of Planning on the grounds that:
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to provide appropriate
level of affordable housing on site provision that directly relates to the development, would
fail to comply with the requirements of policies 3.11 and 3.12 of The London Plan 2015
and policy CS1.J of the Harrow Core Strategy 2012, which seeks to maximise the
provision of affordable housing delivery within the borough.
INFORMATION
This application is reported to the Committee as it is a proposal located on a site which is
more than 0.1ha which falls outside of the thresholds set by category 1(d) of the Council‟s
Scheme of Delegation for the determination of new development.
Statutory Return Type: E(20) Small-scale Major Development
Council Interest: None
Net Additional Floorspace: 2910.00 m2
GLA Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Contribution (provisional): £101,850.00
Harrow Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Contribution (provisional): £160, 050
Site Description
 The application site occupies a substantial site of 0.22ha at the northern side of
Hindes Road, which include the four sites that are known as 11, 13, 15 and 17
Hindes Road.
 The combined site is located between the Hindes Road junctions with Station Road to
the east, and Hamilton Road and Welldon Crescent to the west. Directly on the
eastern boundary is the access road into the Tesco Superstore car park.
 Directly to the south of the application site and fronting onto Hindes Road, is a
purpose built flatted development, a property converted into a hotel, and residential
dwellings. Directly to the west are properties of a similar appearance, and are also in
education use, as a Preparatory School. Further west again of this site are
predominantly residential properties.
 Directly to the east and along part of the northern boundary is the car park to the
Tesco Superstore. Further to the east is Station Road, which is characterised by
commercial units with some residential above.
 The application site, is an amalgamation of four properties, were historically were
used for residential purposes. Each of the properties maintain a residential
appearance externally, which is in a Victorian style of architecture.
 The application site sits just outside of the Town Centre Opportunity Area, as defined
within the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (2013).
 There is a slight change in the levels across the site, falling from south to north.
 The application site is not located within a conservation or within the setting a Listed
Building.
 The site is not located within a Flood Risk Area, although is within a Critical Drainage
Area. There are no trees on site that are protected.
Proposal Details
 The application proposes to demolish the existing buildings on site, and to erect a
part 3/part 4 storey replacement assisted living care home.
 The proposed development would provide for 29 units of Retirement Living (Category
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
33

II) accommodation, with associated communal facilities, parking and landscaping.
Access to the premises would be via Hindes Road, on the western end of the site.
Built Form
 The proposed replacement building on the site would have an „L‟ shape within the
site, with the front elevation fronting onto Hindes Road, before having a rearward
projection that would run along the eastern boundary with the Tesco Superstore
Carpark.
 The proposed building would have a front elevation that would be 40m wide and
31.2m deep along the eastern boundary. On the western boundary, the building
would be 12m deep, before stepping deeper into the site the further east it travels.
The deepest point of the building, would be located some 34m from the western
boundary.
 It is proposed that the building would be a three and four storey building, with
accommodation within the roof area of the development.
 At its closest point to the western boundary, which would be set off by 6.5m, the
building would be 9.0m high. A further 1.7m set in from the edge of the third floor, a
mansard style roof would be erected with an overall height of 12.1m. The mansard
style roof would provide for further accommodation, and would have dormers to
provide light and outlook for accommodation within the roof.
 On the eastern end of the front elevation, the proposed building would have a
traditional four storey appearance, with a flat roof. The proposed building at the most
eastern end would have a height of 13.3m.
 The Design & Access Statement stages that the materials would be locally distinctive.
It would be primarily a brick building with traditionally tiled roofs. It is proposed to
provide UPVC windows/glazing details, with steel railings and handrails to be
incorporated for balconies.
Accommodation
 The proposed development would provide for 29 units for independent living, with an
element of care tailored to the specific requirements of individual occupiers.
 The proposed development would comprise of 12 one bedroom and 17 two bedroom
units.
 Each of the units would be self-contained, and would be barrier free and would be
entirely wheelchair accessible.
 Alongside the independent living accommodation, the proposal would also provide;
 Residents lounge
 A guest suite
 Concierge desk
 Assisted WC
 Internal refuse room
 Internal mobility scooter store
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
The Council has carried out a screening opinion pursuant to the Town and Country
Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011 (as amended)
for the Redevelopment to provide a three storey building for a 29 unit assisted living care
home (use class C2) with parking, landscaping and bin storage The opinion concludes
that the proposed development is not EIA development.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
34
Relevant History
HAR/10403
Outline: Application for gymnasium and classroom
Grant: 19/04/1955
LBH/5406
Erection of single storey building at No. 15 – 17 Hindes Road, for tutorial
Grant: 20/07/1970
LBH/22075
Single storey classroom building
Grant: 16/09/1982
LBH/25607
Single and three storey extensions for educational use
Grant: 28/06/1984
LBH/29604
Change of use of No. 13 Hindes Road from residential to school use
Grant: 24/04/1986
LBH/35209
Temporary single storey classroom building assistant
Grant: 04/05/1988
LBH/41440
Retention of temporary single storey classroom building assistant
Grant: 17/08/1990
WEST/430/93/FUL
Change of Use: C2 to D1 (Elderly persons care home to educational)
Grant: 02/12/1993
WEST/1/95/FUL
Three storey side and rear extensions, including accommodation in the roof space with
disabled access and forecourt parking.
Grant: 19/06/1995
P/160/03/CFU
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of car park with associated landscaping
Grant, Subject to a Legal Agreement: 03/06/2003
Pre-Application Discussion - Planning Performance Agreement
The applicant engaged in pre-application consultation with the Local Planning Authority.
 Principle of the loss of the Educational floor space is not encouraged. The loss of this
would need to be robustly evidenced with any forthcoming planning application.
 Layout of the building followed a rational approach
 The design of the building needed to be simplified, and have a more appropriate
appearance within the existing streetscene
 The corner of the building needs to address the corner of the site more appropriate,
as it is such a prominent location.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
35
Amendments to the Scheme
Throughout the application stage, a number of amendments have been made to the
scheme and are as follows;
 The gable features have been revised to remove the pitched elements. The only true
four storey element, is located on the corner to address the corner. The remaining
dormers have been removed and the mansard roof has front dormers.
 Railings around the roof edge of the third floor element have been removed, and
replaced with Juliet balconies to the dormers.
 The entrance to the property has been rationalised to provide a more legible
entrance.
 Simplification of the materials palette.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
The Council‟s Statement of Community Involvement (2012) states that „ideally the results
of pre-application consultation should be included in the planning application and form
part of the planning application process‟. A Statement of Community Involvement has
accompanied the Application and this document explains the programme of public
consultation and community engagement carried out prior to the submission of the
application. As part of its programme of community engagement, the applicant held oneto-one meetings with Councillors, neighbours and third party groups on Wednesday 10 th
June 2015. These were held on an appointment basis. A public exhibition was held on
Monday 13th July 2015, which 1000 residents and businesses were invited to attend. A
press release was also issued within The Harrow Observer and The Harrow Times. On
the day of the public exhibition, 9 residents attended. Three local Councillors attended this
public exhibition.
Applicant Submission Documents
 Planning Statement
 Design and Access Statement
 Statement of Community Involvement
 Transport Assessment and Travel Plan
 Energy Statement/Sustainability Statement
 Drainage Report
Consultations
Highway Authority: No Objection, appraised under section 5 of this report
Harrow Drainage Team: No Objection, subject to conditions
Reason for Advertisement: Major Development
First Round of Consultation:
Press Release: 17th September 2015
Expiry: 9th September 2015
Site Notice Erected: 21st August 2015 (X 3)
Expiry: 10th September 2015
Second Round of Consultation.
Notification
Sent: 406
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
36
Expiry: 7th October 2015
Reponses Received: 5
Neighbours Consulted:
Extensive consultation has been carried out, which covers a wide area surrounding the
site, including Station Road, Hindes Road, Warrington Road, Fairholme Road, Hamilton
Road, Welldon Crescent.
Summary of Responses:
 Objections (5)
 Support (1)
Objections:
Alpha Preparatory School
 Overlooking into the grounds (TOILETS) of the Preparatory School
 Loss of D1 use space within the area which would allow the expansion of the
neighbouring school.
 Would create an imbalance within the area as there are too many retirement homes
within Hindes Road
 Disruption to children in the adjacent school as a result of the construction noise.
 Potential harm to health with asbestos within the existing buildings.
 Amount of car parking, and the location of this to the rear of the site results in an
increase in vehicles along this common boundary which would cause nuisance
 Many parents in the car park of the Tescos Superstore (with their permission), and
walk children to Alpha Preparatory School, and would have to cross the busy entrance
way.
 Entrance to the application site is located directly adjacent to the School‟s east fire
escape location.
 Loss of fine examples of late Victorian architecture.
Wider Neighbour Consultation
 Loss of the D1 floorspace as there is a demand for school and nursery places
 The location of the driveway is completely blind for drives and pedestrians due to the
existing fence on Alpha Preparatory School.
 Loss of the existing properties that are an example of Victorian architecture, and would
detrimental to the local area.
 Discussions in place looking to purchase the property.
Support:
 Excellent use of the premises
 Existing buildings appear to have been neglected
The above responses are discussed within the body of this report, and specifically within
Section 13.
APPRAISAL
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:
„If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to be
made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
37
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
The Government has issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which
consolidates national planning policy and is a material consideration in the determination
of this application.
In this instance, the Development Plan comprises The London Plan (Consolidated with
Amendments Since 2011) (2015) and the Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF
comprises The Harrow Core Strategy 2012, Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan
(AAP) 2013, the Development Management Policies Local Plan (DMP) 2013, the Site
Allocations Local Plan (SALP) 2013 and Harrow Local Area Map (LAP) 2013.
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of Development
Affordable Housing
Design, Character and Appearance of the Area
Residential Amenity
Traffic, Parking, Access, Servicing and Sustainable Transport
Sustainability and Climate Change Mitigation
Flood Risk and Development
Equalities Implications and the Human Rights Act
Trees and Development
Ecology and Biodiversity
Land Contamination and Remediation
S17 Crime and Disorder Act
Consultation Responses
Principle of the Development
 Provision of Care Facilities including Extra Care Accommodation
Paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework outlines that “local planning
authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic
trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but
not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, older people,
people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes).
London Plan policy (2015) 3.16 outlines the need for additional and enhanced social
infrastructure provision to meet the needs of its growing and diverse population. It states
that “development proposals which provide high quality social infrastructure will be
supported in light of local and strategic needs assessments…Facilities should be
accessible to all sections of the community and be located within easy reach by walking,
cycling and public transport”. Further to this, 3.17 „Health and Social Care Facilities states
that “proposals that provide high quality health and social care facilities will be supported
in areas of identified need, particularly in places easily accessible by public transport ,
cycling and walking”.
The London Plan (2015) also identifies a need for specialist accommodation for older
people (including sheltered accommodation, extra care accommodation and nursing
home care). Paragraph 3.50b states:
“Research suggests that the choices open to older Londoners to move into
local specialist housing may have been constrained through inadequate
supply. Extending these choices through a higher level of specialist
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
38
provision will in turn free up larger family homes for family occupation. Over
the period 2015-2025, older Londoners may require 3,600-4,200 new
specialist units per annum. At the mid-point of this range, these might be
broken down broadly into 2,600 private units pa, 1000 in shared ownership
and some 300 new affordable units. There may also be a requirement for
400-500 new bed spaces per annum in care homes”
Table A5.1 of The London Plan provides indicative strategic benchmarks to inform local
targets and performance indicators for specialist housing for older people (including
sheltered accommodation, extra care accommodation and nursing home care) between
2015 and 2025. The annual benchmark figure for Harrow is stated as 150 units.
Local plan policy DM 29 states that “the Council will support proposals on previously
developed land for sheltered housing, care homes and extra care housing (across all
tenures) for older people and those who may be vulnerable, provided that the proposal is
accessible by public transport with good access to local amenities including shops and
local facilities”.
The requirement to provide specialist accommodation for the elderly is supported in
paragraph 50 of the NPPF. The proposal is also supported by The London Plan (2015)
and the Harrow DMP Local Plan (2013), subject to the development being high quality, in
an area of identified need and accessible by public transport and local amenities.
London Plan Policy 3.18 provides guidance on Education Facilities across London, and
notes that „proposals which result in the net loss of education facilities should be resisted,
unless it can be demonstrated that here is no ongoing or future demand‟. Paragraph
3.103 provides further guidance, stating that land already in educational use should be
safeguarded and new sites secured to meet additional demands in provision. At a local
level, the loss of an existing education facility must demonstrate compliance with one of
the elements detailed under Policy DM47A of the Harrow Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2013). Policy DM47A provides four points, of which an application
proposing the loss of the education facility, must find compliance with one of, to enable
the Local Planning Authority to support a scheme in regard to this point. Policy DM47A
reads as follows;
A. Proposals involving the loss of an existing community, a sport or educational facility
will be permitted if;
a. There is no longer a need for that facility (having regard to the amount of local
patronage, the quality of the facilities offered and the duration and extent of
marketing. (For proposals involving the loss of a public house, evidence of 12
months‟ suitable marketing activity will be required or evidence that the public
house is no longer financially viable through the submission of trading
accounts, or other similar financial evidence, whilst the pub was operating full
time business)); or
b. There are adequate similar facilities within the walking distance which offer
equivalent provision; or
c. The activities carried out on site are inconsistent and cannot be made
consistent with acceptable living conditions for nearby residents; or
d. The redevelopment of the site would secure an over-riding public benefit.
In determining the application, as mentioned previously, a scheme would only need to
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
39
accord with one of the above points for the loss of the education facility considered to be
acceptable. In terms of the current application, the applicant has attempted to
demonstrate compliance with as many of the points listed above as possible, and each
point as part of this assessment will be reviewed.
The applicant has attempted to demonstrate that there is no longer a need for this specific
use on this site, and has set about demonstrating this through active marketing of the site.
The Local Planning Authority would expect this marketing to be carried out over a
substantial period of time. It is therefore reasonable to expect 12 months of continuous
marketing to have been undertaken, with little, or no interest in the floor space as its
current authorised use. The applicant has not provided 12 months of continuous
marketing, rather it has been sporadic over this period. The application property was
initially marketed in September 2014, and was then subsequently purchased by the
applicant. Having purchased the property, it was then marketed again in June 2015. From
this date to the writing of this report, there has been, generally speaking, limited interest in
the property.
One offer was made on the property from a Free School, which had it eventuated, would
have retained the D1 use class of the application site. Whilst it would be encouraged to
retain the site as a D1 use, any further evidence on the validity of the offer or indeed any
progression beyond this has not come to light. The marketing of the site is considered to
not be sufficiently robust in the length or in its continuity to satisfy the policy test in itself.
However, it is considered that on balance, the evidence has satisfactorily demonstrated
that there is little uptake in the need for such a floor space within this area.
Lastly on this point, the Education Department have provided comment with regard to the
actual use of the application property for the continued use as a D1 use class. With
regard to the need within the borough, it is noted that that the Education departments
planned works and upgrading of existing schools stock, would ensure that the required
target for both Central Primary and Secondary Area spaces would be met over the next
10 years. Specifically to the application site, the Education Department noted a number of
issues with the property, which would lead to it being difficult to be occupied by a D1 user.
The application property is noted as being converted residential dwellings, which have
been extended over time. As such, there is limited scope for outdoor amenity space to be
utilised by students, although this is noted as being an on-going issue across London. On
a final note, there is no funding available for Harrow Council to purchase the property and
operate a school use at the site.
Policy DM47A(b) would allow the loss of D1 floor space if there is adequate similar
facilities within close proximity to the application site. Whilst no purpose built sites are
located within close proximity to the application site, the Wickes Building is located
approximately 260m away, and has been changed to a D1 use under Prior Approval
(P/3941/15). This property is in the process of being fitted out to provide for a school
space, and has further planning applications being considered for improvements to the
site. It is considered that the Wickes Building, which is located on Station Road, some
260m to the east of the application site, would provide a similar and satisfactory use in the
same vicinity. As such, the proposed development would satisfy this policy requirement.
Policy DM47A(c) states that the loss of a D1 use from a site would be considered
acceptable, if the existing use is inconsistent with neighbouring uses, and are unable to
be made consistent. Whilst the properties on the site are currently vacant, the authorised
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
40
use of the application site has historically been as a School (Use Class D1). It is noted
that the property directly adjacent to the west, is of the same use class, being the Alpha
Preparatory School. Directly to the east and along the northern (rear) boundary, is the car
park for the Tesco Superstore. The existing use on site would not conflict with either of the
two properties on the flank boundaries. There are residential properties within the vicinity
of the application site, with properties on the southern side of Hindes Road, and also to
the west along Hamilton Road. However, the existing use of the property has been carried
out for some time on site, and does not appear to have generated a conflict with the
nearby residential properties. It is therefore considered that the existing use of the
property as a School (Use Class D12), would not conflict with the amenities of nearby
residential occupiers. In this instance, the proposed development would not accord with
Policy DM47A(c).
DM47A(d) permits the loss of floor space in Use Class D1 should the redevelopment of
the site secure an overriding public benefit. The proposed redevelopment of the site
would provide a contribution towards the housing stock of the borough. However, it is
noted that the allocations (as detailed within the Harrow Council Site Allocations Plan
(2013)) provide enough quantum for the housing targets for the borough over the plans
lifetime. Accordingly, the provision of a contribution to the borough housing stock on its
own, would not result in an overriding public benefit for which the loss of the D1 floor
space could be justified. Furthermore, the proposed scheme as it stands, does not
provide a provision of affordable housing. The application does find favour in providing a
mix of, and a certain type of residential accommodation to the boroughs housing stock,
namely housing for the elderly which is not well catered for in the Borough. Evidence
submitted by the applicant, in support of the application, indicates that there is a shortfall
in the amount of bed spaces for this type of accommodation both across the London and
more specifically, the London Borough of Harrow. Figures indicate that this deficit is set to
increase. Given the mix of housing that would become available, and also the type of
residential, for which there is a need, the proposed development would find some support
in providing a development that would assist in ensuring a public need is met. However,
this is only insofar as providing the option of a different housing type. The proposed units
would be marketed on the open market, with the scheme unable to provide an affordable
housing contribution. The above must therefore be balanced against the loss of the D1
(Educational) floor space. It is considered that on balance, the proposed scheme would
not provide an overriding public benefit, by reason of the failure to provide an affordable
housing contribution, which would override the loss of the Educational (Use Class D1)
floorspace, but there provision of a varied housing offer should be afforded some weight.
The proposed loss of a D1 use class floor space from the borough stocks, need only to
comply with one of the points from Policy DM47A. The applicant has satisfactorily
demonstrated that the proposed loss of D1 floor space would comply with DM47(A) (b)
and to a lesser extent, sub-criterion (a), and as such is considered to be acceptable.
Turning to the proposed use of the site, this would fall within a C2 use (Category II)
Retirement Living. Any form of Sheltered Housing, Care Homes and Extra Care Housing
would be supported by the Local Planning Authority where the following can be
demonstrated „…that the proposal is accessible by public transport with good access to
local amenities including shops and community facilities.‟
The application site is located on Hindes Road, near its junction with Station Road. The
application site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 3, which is good. However, it
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
41
is noted that this is directly adjacent to the Station Road intersection, which in the
immediate vicinity of this intersection has a PTAL rating from 4 – 6. From the Hindes
Road/Station road intersection, it is an approximately 850m to the Harrow-on-the-Hill
Train Station, and approximately 875m north to the Harrow and Wealdstone Train Station.
It is considered that the location of the application property, in terms of highways terms, is
highly sustainable and would comply with this part of Policy DM29.
The application site is noted as being located on the northern side of Hindes Road, and a
short distance to the Station Road intersection to the east. Located behind the application
site, and accessed directly from Hindes Road (along the eastern property boundary of the
application property), is a Tesco Super Store. The Tesco Superstore provides a number
of local amenities, such as a bakery, fishmonger, halal counter, delicatessen and a
pharmacy. Predominantly located on the western side of Station Road, either side of the
Hindes Road intersection, are a vast number of amenities including restaurants,
takeaways, pharmacy, betting shops and a tattoo parlour. Furthermore, the Harrow
Metropolitan Town Centre, which contains the St Anns shopping centre, is directly
opposite the Harrow-on-the-Hill Train Station, some 850m from the application site. Given
the proximity to the vast number of amenities, the proposed location is considered to
satisfy policy DM29 in this respect.
The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the existing use of the property,
authorised as an Education (Use Class D1), is no longer required to be retained as part of
the boroughs stocks. Furthermore, the proposed use of the property as a care home (Use
Class (C2), has been demonstrated as being acceptable in terms of its location within the
borough. The proposed development therefore is in general accordance with Policies
DM29 & DM47 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
Affordable Housing
Core Policy CS1J of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) seeks the maximum reasonable
amount of affordable housing on all development sites, with a Borough-wide target of
40%. DM policy 24 states that proposals that secure an appropriate mix of housing on
site and which contribute to the creation of mixed and inclusive communities will be
supported.
Paragraph 6.30 outlines that policy CS1 J applies to schemes for sheltered housing and
extra care homes that fall within the thresholds. It is considered, and agreed by the
applicant that the proposed residential development, would fall within the thresholds that
require an affordable housing contribution.
The proposed units within the development would provide for independent living flats (29
units) which would be self-contained. Given the nature of the residential use of the site,
and the proposed quantum of units exceeding 10 households, the application is liable to
provide an affordable housing contribution. In support of the planning application, the
applicant has submitted a Financial Viability Assessment, which attempts to demonstrate
that the proposed development is unable to provide a policy compliant scheme in terms of
affordable housing provision. The supporting information demonstrates that the proposed
development once delivered, having considered the cost of land acquisition and the
development of the proposed scheme, in conjunction with the associated costs, would not
result in the scheme being financially able to either provide affordable units within the
application site, on another development site within the borough, or a financial
contribution in lieu of on-site or off-site provision.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
42
The submitted information has been robustly tested by an independent financial cost
consultant, who for the most, have agreed with the assumptions of the submitted
document. However, it has been highlighted that given the minimal amount of comparable
schemes to this type of accommodation being provided, there is still some uncertainty to
the actual sales values of the apartments. The applicant has been unable to provide
satisfactory data with regard to comparable sales of similar sized units. As such, it has
been recommended that a review clause be required as part of a legal agreement to allow
the sales values to be reviewed at a later date. This will ensure that should the sales
values be in excess of what has been presented at this stage, a mechanism would be in
place to capture a significant portion of any uplift of the sales figures as a financial
contribution towards affordable housing in the Borough.
It is considered that the remaining assumptions made within the Financial Viability
Assessment are generally reasonable and as such accepted. Subject to the review
mechanism then, it is considered that the proposed development would deliver the
maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing and would be acceptable in terms of
the Planning Obligations SPD (2013).
Design, Character and Appearance of the Area
The application site is currently vacant in terms of use, but has been used most previously
as a school. However, it is noted that the built form, rather than being a purpose built
school, has resulted through the amalgamation of residential properties. Buildings on the
application site are relatively attractive, and a fine example of Victorian Architecture.
However, the buildings occupying the application are not afforded any protection by virtue
of being listed or within a conservation area. Whilst it is noted that an objection was
received in relation to the retention of these houses, the demolition of them (physically)
would not require planning permission. Accordingly, the Local Planning Authority would
be unable to protect these dwellings as structures. The demolition of the dwellings is
therefore acceptable.
The London Plan (2015) policies 7.4B and 7.6B set out the design principles that all
boroughs should seek to ensure for all development proposals. The London Plan (2015)
policy 7.4B states, inter alia, that all development proposals should have regard to the
local context, contribute to a positive relationship between the urban landscape and
natural features, be human in scale, make a positive contribution and should be informed
by the historic environment. The London Plan (2015) policy 7.6B states, inter alia, that all
development proposals should; be of the highest architectural quality, which complement
the local architectural character and be of an appropriate proportion composition, scale
and orientation. Development should not be harmful to amenities, should incorporate best
practice for climate change, provide high quality indoor and outdoor spaces, be adaptable
to different activities and land uses and meet the principles of inclusive design. Core
Strategy policy CS1.B states that „all development shall respond positively to the local and
historic context in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce the positive
attributes of local distinctiveness whilst promoting innovative design and/or enhancing
areas of poor design‟.
Policy DM1 of the DMP gives advice that „‟all development proposals must achieve a high
standard of design and layout. Proposals which fail to achieve a high standard of design
and layout, or which are detrimental to local character and appearance, will be resisted.‟‟
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
43
The application site is located on the northern side of Hindes Road, between the junctions
with Station Road to the east and Hamilton Road to the west. The site is currently an
amalgamation of a number of sites, which were traditionally used as residential properties,
before being converted into a school use. However, the fabric of the buildings have
retained a distinctly residential character that is predominant to the west of the site. To the
east and north, which is directly on the common boundary with the application site, is the
Tesco Superstore site car park.
Layout
The proposed replacement building would continue to be located to the front of the site,
fronting onto Hindes Road. However, it‟s most obvious variation to that which is existing,
is that the building line would project much deeper into the site along the eastern
boundary. As such, the overall footprint would represent an „L‟ shape within the site. The
proposed layout would run parallel with Hindes Road, and then run northward along the
common boundary with the Tesco Superstore Car Park. Given that this elevation would
run along the common boundary with the car park, which has a very open aspect, the
flank elevation would be much more prominent from the public realm. By positioning the
bulk of the building along these two boundaries, it provides a vehicle access along the
eastern boundary, and as such a set off of the proposed buildings from this common
boundary with the adjoining occupiers. The rear of the site would provide for car parking,
which is discussed later within this report, and also some hard / soft landscaping for
amenity space for future occupiers.
Along the northern side of Hindes Road, and to the west of the application site, there is a
strong building line which the front elevations of existing properties follow. No building line
exists to the east, which is the open aspect of the Tesco Superstore car park. Respecting
a strong building line is a fundamental urban design principle, one that the proposed
building would achieve by following that of the properties to the west. Given that by
reason of the applications location within the streetscene adjacent to the entrance to the
Tesco Superstore car park, via a roundabout within Hindes Road, the application site
takes on a corner site within the streetscene. The open aspect across the Tesco
Superstore car park when traveling west, results in the application site being very
prominent within the streetscene. Accordingly, it is important that the design of the
scheme not only satisfactory elevation fronting Hindes Road, as a traditional front
elevation, but also one that faces the east across the Tesco Superstore car park.
Amended plans have been received which have resulted in the design of the proposed
development being altered along both the front and flank elevation. The proposed
development four storey building located on the southwestern corner of the site, and
results in full height brick built, flat roof element fronting onto the corner. This element
would run for equal distance from the corner in both a western and northern direction,
where a recessed mansard style roof form would be present. Set within this full length
element would be recessed balconies/winter gardens facing onto Hindes Road, with a
small opening facing out onto the car park to the east. On the eastern elevation facing the
Tesco car park, the elevations are slightly recessed to a similar extent to the dimensions
of the fully recessed balconies/winter gardens. This recess is an important feature, as it
both provides some connection between the two most prominent elements of the
development, and also provides some articulation within the eastern elevation. Both of
these points are crucial, as this element is the most prominent, and must provide a strong
frontage onto the corner of the site.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
44
Set behind the full length four storey, flat roof brick element, would be a mansard style
roof. This element would be set back from the edge of the three storey element, finished
in a different material, with projecting dormers. The different style roof to the rear of the
corner element assists in breaking up the roof form, which in turn lessens the bulk and
scale of the proposed development, whilst still allowing habitable space within the roof
space (which will be considered later within this assessment). Though the applicant has
indicated some materials on the plans, the LPA is not able to confirm the quality of these
materials at this point or their inter-relationship as insufficient information has been
provided, the indicative materials demonstrate a reasonable contrast in the brick and the
dark roof tiles which would assist in breaking up the roof form, and allowing it to be viewed
as a much more subordinate feature within the development. A condition requiring details
of the materials to be used is recommended.
With regard to the proposed height of this scheme, it is noted that the nearest adjacent
property to the application site is to the west, which is used as a school, albeit with a more
residential appearance (Alpha Preparatory School is converted dwellings also). These
properties are noted as two-storey with accommodation in the roofslope (with front
dormers). On the common boundary with the application site, the nearest building has a
hipped roof away from the application site. The existing building on the application site
effectively has a three storey flank elevation, with a roof form that could be described as a
half hip. The proposed new build would be set off this common boundary, set off by the
width of the access way to the rear car park. It would have a three storey flank elevation
along this boundary, with a mansard roof set back from the flank elevation. The existing
property would have an eave height of 9.9m and set off the common boundary with Alpha
Preparatory School by 2.5m. The proposed building would have an eave height of 9.3m
and set some 6.3m from the common boundary. The proposed replacement building
would provide a satisfactory set off from the adjacent property to the west, so that the
flank elevation would not compete with the hipped roof of that property. Whilst it is
acknowledged that the proposed development would provide a scheme that is of
contrasting design to the adjacent property, it would nonetheless provide an adequate
break between the two properties. Furthermore, the appropriate height, in conjunction
with the setback mansard roof form would ensure that it would not be overbearing to the
existing neighbouring property. It could also be concluded that the existing relationship
between the Alpha Preparatory School and the existing building on the application site, by
reason of the full height flan elevation and half-hip roof form, has to some extent been
reflected in the design rationale of the proposed building; being a mansard roof setback
behind the third floor element.
As the proposed building moves in an easterly direction away from the Alpha Preparatory
School, it increases in height to being a full four storeys. The stepping up away from the
three storey property at Alpha Preparatory School. It is considered that the relationship
near the common boundary with Alpha Preparatory School is appropriate in terms of the
design and scale of the proposed building. The fourth floor element is at the opposite end
of the proposed building and as such would not unacceptably impact on this property from
a character point of view.
On the southern side of Hindes Road, and opposite the application site, there is an
eclectic nature in the properties. To the west is relatively traditional two-storey residential
properties, that change to purpose built three storey flatted properties, before decreasing
in bulk to two-storey building with a residential appearance. The proposed building would
be read as a part three storey, part four storey building, with the four storey element being
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
45
the shortest element of the front elevation. Furthermore, the front building would align with
the reminder of the properties on the northern side of the Hindes Road. Given that the
bulk of the proposed development is appropriately proportioned, and also has a generous
setback form the back of the footpath (as to do the properties on the southern side of
Hindes Road), the proposed development would not have an overbearing impact on the
public highway.
The proposed front elevation, which would be the most visible within the streetscene, has
utilised subtle variations within the brickwork to articulate the ground floor of the
development. The use of the subtle variations in the brickwork and a deep reveal around
the entrances provides a level of legibility to the scheme within the streetscene, which
allows clarity to this elevation. Furthermore, a soldier course beneath the frost floor
provides a simple and subtle, but effective method of providing further strength to the
ground floor. On the two floors above, there is a level of symmetry provided through the
use of fenestration and winter gardens. These features are evenly spaced across the front
elevation, with the windows having deep reveals. Within the mansard roof on the front
elevation, the projecting dormer windows are appropriately proportioned within the roof
slope. Along the western elevation, that is noted as being relatively short before travelling
east along the rear of the site. It has a small recess at the end each of both of the
recessed balconies/winter gardens, with a recess in the brick work to lengthen recess
within the main elevation. The soldier course below the first floor would be carried along
the flank elevation.
The eastern flank elevation would have a long run of the three storey element, with the
setback roof with dormer windows above. The dormer windows with doors within the roof
space would have Juliet Balconies. At ground and first floor would be a recessed
balcony/winter garden. At third floor, these features would not be continued, rather a
larger door with a Juliet Balcony would be located. This elevation would front onto the
Tesco Car park Superstore, but still have a relatively prominent view from within Hindes
Road. The eastern flank elevation would have the four storey element located at the
southern end, adjacent to Hindes Road, and where the brick built element decreases to
only three floors, the mansard style roof would be set back from the flank elevation. At
either end, the recessed balconies/winter gardens would be visible, with the remaining
windows/doors being full length. It to ensure this elevation would not appear as overly flat
and uninteresting, it is considered reasonable that a condition be attached to require
details of the reveal for the doors and windows. The mansard style roof would be set back
from the third floor element, which would assist in both reducing the appearance of bulk,
and would also assist in providing a level of interest to this elevation. The contrasting
materials used within the roof element add further interest to this elevation.
The rear elevation, which is primarily viewed from Tesco Superstore car park, is not
proposed to have any recessed balconies/winter gardens. However, the full length doors
with Juliet Balconies and full length windows would continue to have deep reveals, which
would ensure a satisfactory level of articulation within the rear elevations. To ensure that
a satisfactory reveal is provided to the windows and doors within the elevations, it is
considered reasonable that a condition be attached to receive 1:20 detailed drawings to
confirm that these would be provided. It is considered that the proposed building would be
of an appropriate design and appearance.
Materials
The supporting information submitted with the application provides detail of the materials
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
46
that are proposed to be used across the scheme. It is acknowledged that a relatively
simple palette of materials is proposed to be used. Whilst this is considered to be an
appropriate and acceptable approach, there is some concern over the specific materials
that have been proposed. Of note it is proposed that uPVC windows and door frames are
to be used within the development. The use of uPVC windows are not encouraged as
they would not provide a high quality finish, which as a result, would fail the high quality of
design test as required by DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local
Plan (2013). However, as more suitable materials could be secured by way of a condition,
such a condition is therefore recommended.
It is considered that the proposed replacement building on site, subject to safeguarding
conditions, would provide a high quality of development. The proposed building would
appear appropriate within the application site and within the wider streetscene. It would
provide an appropriate presence in what is essentially a corner, and prominent site.
 Landscaping:
Cumulatively, the existing buildings that occupy the application site have a larger footprint
than the proposed replacement building. The existing buildings consist of a number of
buildings on the site, whereas the proposed replacement building would rationalise the
buildings into one structure across the site. Notwithstanding the broken up footprints of
the existing buildings on site, this does not appear to have enabled a high quality of
landscaping across the site, either soft or hard landscaping at this. From a streetscene
appearance, there is little meaningful soft landscaping, and the hardstanding is
inconsistent and in poor condition. To the flank and rear boundaries to the rear of the
existing properties on site, are a number of relatively mature trees.
The proposed development would rationalise the built structure into one build. It would
provide a vehicle access along the western boundary, which would provide access to the
car parking area to the rear. By the very nature of providing a carpark to the rear, there
will be a substantial amount of hardstanding. Furthermore, the established trees along the
rear and western boundary are shown as being retained, which is encouraged. However,
where possible, the opportunity to provide soft landscaping has been taken. The
hardstanding at the front of the site would be re-laid with a mix of soft and hard
landscaping. It is therefore considered that given the specific site circumstances, there
would be an appropriate level of both hard and soft landscaping within the site.
Hard landscaping
The existing hardstanding in the front garden would be removed. As mentioned above,
the front garden is dominated by hard surfacing, with very little meaningful soft
landscaping to break this up or enhance the appearance of the site. Full details of hard
landscaping has not been developed other than hard surfacing and boundary treatment. A
condition has been attached accordingly to ensure further detail in relation to hard
landscaping is received. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the ratio between hard
and soft landscaping would be appropriate, and subject to a safeguarding condition this
would be acceptable.
Soft Landscaping
Soft landscaping is an important element to the proposed development, as it assists in
breaking up areas of hardstanding and improving the appearance of the development.
The proposed development as mentioned previously would introduce soft landscaping
between the front elevation and Hindes Road.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
47
To the rear of the site, access and car parking is proposed, and as such requires
hardstanding. Notwithstanding this, the proposed plans indicate that where possible, soft
landscaping would be incorporated into the rear of the site. It is considered that the
amount of soft landscaping proposed within the site would be appropriate, and would
ensure that there would not be a dominance of hardstanding or buildings. A condition is
recommended requiring further details of the soft landscaping on the site and a
subsequent management plan.
Conclusion
Subject to the conditions, it is considered that the external appearance and design of the
buildings together with the proposed landscaping scheme are consistent with the
principles of good design as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
The resultant development would be appropriate in its context and would comply with
policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan (2015), Core Policy CS1(B) of the Harrow
Core Strategy, policy DM1 of the Council‟s Development Management Policies Local Plan
and the Council‟s adopted Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Design
Guide (2010), which require a high standard of design and layout in all development
proposals.
Residential Amenity
London Plan Policy 7.6 Architecture states that buildings and structures should not
cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings in relation to
privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate.
Core Strategy Policy CS1 B requires development to respond positively to the local
context in terms of design, siting, density and spacing. Policy DM1 Achieving a High
Standard of Development sets out a number of privacy and amenity criteria for the
assessment of the impact of development upon neighbouring occupiers. Harrow has
also produced a Residential Design Guide SPD.
The existing site is characterised by having a building layout on site that starts on
Gayton Road, before turning the corner and being parallel with Northwick Park Road up
to its junction with Manor Road. Along the Manor Road frontage, a pair of semi-detached
dwellings are located which provide staff accommodation for the existing Comfort Inn
Hotel. The proposed development would result in a replacement building of a similar
layout within the site, although is noted as having a continuous building form and
consistent design rationale. Furthermore, there would be a change in the use of the
property away from being a hotel to a care home providing assisted living.
Future Residents
The proposed development is a purpose built development to provide accommodation
for elderly people, many with varying levels of mobility. Accordingly, the applicant has
stated that as a result of the extra care accommodation provision, the space standards
provided within the development are larger than a traditional C2 care home. The
supporting documents state that the proposed accommodation (both private and
communal areas) would comply with Lifetime Homes Standards. It is acknowledged that
the Lifetime Homes criteria (and Code for Sustainable Homes) has now been
superseded by the London Plan (2015) Housing Technical Standards, these criteria
provide guidance for residential accommodation. Notwithstanding this, the proposed
accommodation would exceed or meet the requirements of the London Plan in all
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
48
instances.
The applicant has confirmed that the proposed design of the care home will be fully
compliant with the Care Standards Act 2000 for the recommended National Minimum
Standards of the development. The space standards and internal layout will enable the
delivery of the highest quality of care to all residents for the life of the building. This
therefore means that the proposed care home is compliant with the aspirations,
principles and objectives of the National Service Framework for Older People.
The submitted plans indicate that a lift would be provided within the development, which,
potentially can lead to noise disturbance to habitable rooms that are adjacent to the lift
shafts. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate that details of noise mitigation be
required to ensure that this element would not result in unacceptable harm to the future
occupiers. As such, a condition has been recommended accordingly.
Neighbouring Residential Amenity
Use of the site
The authorised use of the existing property is currently a school (Use Class D1),
although is noted as being vacant. Directly to the east is the car park to the Tesco
Superstore, which also runs along park of the northern boundary. To the west of the
property is the Alpha Preparatory School, which has buildings that follow the same
building line fronting Hindes Road, and also extends north along the Hamilton Road, for
the full depth of the application property. A small part of the site, which is at its most
northern point, would adjoin the southern flank boundary of the residential property
known as No. 1 Hamilton Road. Along the southern side of Hindes Road, and directly
opposite, are residential properties. Further east, towards Station Road, a number of
properties have been converted for Hotel Use. Whilst there is a number of differing use
classes present within the immediate vicinity, residential uses are prevalent. The
proposed use would be a form of residential use, and as such would not be considered
to be inconsistent with the surrounding area.
A small part of the northern most boundary would sit directly on the common boundary
with No. 1 Hamilton Road, which is noted as being a residential property. However, it is
noted that in this corner would be located car parking for the proposed care home. The
change of use away from a school to a care home would likely result in a decrease in the
amount of noise generated from the site, when compared with that of a school,
notwithstanding the existing property (when in operation) being used only on week days.
Furthermore, No.1 Hamilton Road is located directly on the common (rear) boundary
with the Alpha Preparatory School, which has its playground located on the common
boundary. As such, it is considered that during weekdays, specifically, there would
already be a relatively high (yet intermittent) background noise. The proposed care
home would be a residential use which would not conflict with, or be harmful to the
amenities of the occupiers of No. 1 Hamilton Road through noise.
On the opposite side of Hindes Road, there are residential properties. Again, the
proposed use of the property as a care home, would be of a residential nature, and as
such would not result in harm to the amenities of these occupiers in terms of noise.
The proposed change of use would result in an access way along the western boundary,
adjacent to the Alpha Preparatory School, which would serve a car park to the rear of
the site. Currently, whilst a vehicle cross over exists, there is little vehicular traffic that
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
49
enters/exists the site. As such, there would be some difference in the use of the site
insofar as visitor/servicing parking accessing the rear of the site. However, care homes
by their very nature do not require a high parking provision, given the visitation and
demand placed on them. As such, it is considered that the proposed care home would
not result in comings and goings that would be harmful to the residential amenity of
neighbouring occupiers.
An objection has been received from the Alpha Preparatory School with regard to the
use of the properties, which would result in windows within the flank elevation that would
overlook the school. It is noted that the adjoining property is a school, and as such does
not have habitable windows. However, the applicant acknowledges that there is scope to
enhance the screening along the existing boundary, which would assist in improving the
privacy of the occupiers of this site. Firstly, it is noted that there is already an existing
1.8m high close boarded concrete fence along this common boundary, and there is
scope to provide further soft landscaping along this boundary. It is therefore considered
reasonable to attach conditions seeking further detail with regard to both the proposed
boundary treatment and also the soft landscaping for the site.
A further objection for the Alpha Preparatory School also raises concern over safety of
the access of the property, in relation to the impacts on the users of Alpha Preparatory
School. However, any concerns relating to highway and pedestrian safety are
considered later within this report.
An objection has been received regarding the construction nuisance from the site. It is
noted that this would be temporary in nature, and hours of work has been condition as
part of this permission to assist in mitigating harm to neighbouring amenity. Furthermore,
a Construction Management Plan is considered appropriate to be condition, which shall
be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for authorisation. Such an approved
document shall be implemented accordingly with the aim to reduce impacts on
neighbouring occupiers during the construction phase. Subject to such conditions, it is
considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on
the neighbouring residential amenity.
Built Development
In terms of the potential for the impact on residential amenity as a result of the proposed
development, it is noted that either side of the application site are non-residential
properties. Directly adjacent to the west is the Alpha Preparatory School and to the east
is the car park for the Tesco Superstore. The only residential property that is adjoining
the application site is No.1 Hamilton Road, which is located to the north along part of the
rear boundary. The eastern flank boundary runs along the rear of the property known as
No. 1 Hamilton Road. The submitted plans indicate the proposed building, at its nearest
point would be some 35m from the common (rear) boundary with No. 1 Hamilton Road.
Given the distance of the proposed building to No. 1 Hamilton Road, it is considered that
there would be no harm on the amenities of the occupiers of this properties in terms of
light or outlook.
Located either side of the application site on the flank boundaries, are properties that are
non-residential in nature. Whilst there are no buildings on the Tesco Superstore car park
directly adjacent to the application site, there are to the west, being the Alpha
Preparatory School. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are windows located on the
flank elevation of the Alpha Preparatory School, these are non-residential and unable to
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
50
be protected. In terms of the built structure proposed on site, it is considered that it
would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of this property.
With regard to the residential properties located on the southern side of Hindes Road,
the proposed replacement building would represent a traditional residential relationship
with these buildings. As such, it is considered that the proposed development not result
in any harm to the neighbouring occupiers on the southern side of Hindes Road.
Given the separation distance from the proposed care home and other neighbouring
properties, it is considered that it would not result in unreasonable harm to neighbouring
occupiers by reason of a loss of light, outlook or privacy.
Conclusion
The proposed development would result in a residential use on the site, which is
considered to not be inconsistent with the prevailing pattern of development. It is
considered that a care home as a use would not unacceptably harm the amenity of the
nearby residential properties, by reason of unreasonable comings and goings from the
site. Furthermore, the proposed development, by reason of its appropriate siting and
location, would not result in a loss of outlook or light to residential amenity. Accordingly,
it is considered that subject to conditions, the proposed development would accord with
the above policies.
Traffic, Parking, Access, Servicing and Sustainable Transport
The NPPF recognises that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating
sustainable development but also contribute to wider sustainability and health objectives.
It further recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different
communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from
urban to rural areas. London Plan policy 6.3 states that „development proposals should
ensure that impacts on transport capacity and the transport network, at both a corridor
and local level, are fully assessed‟. Policies 6.9 and 6.10 relate to the provision of cycle
and pedestrian friendly environments, whilst policy 6.13 relates to parking standards.
Core Strategy policy CS1.Q seeks to „secure enhancements to the capacity, accessibility
and environmental quality of the transport network‟, whilst policy CS1.R reinforces the
aims of London Plan policy 6.13, which aims to contribute to modal shift through the
application of parking standards and implementation of a Travel Plan.
The existing property does not provide for a formal car parking provision on the site.
Dropped kerbs onto Hindes Road exist by reason of the pre-existing use as residential
properties. However, there is little scope to provide satisfactory parking within the front
garden area.
The proposal seeks to utilise the dropped kerb at the western end of the front boundary,
which would then provide an access way to the rear garden area. The existing frontage
would be redeveloped to provide for a mix of hard and soft landscaping. It is proposed to
provide for 19 car parking spaces to the rear of the site, two of which would be set aside
for disabled parking bays.
Whilst it would appear that the amount of on-site car parking is relatively low for a 29
bedroom care home, the actual amount of requirement for car parking is not
proportionate to the amount of bed spaces provided within the development. This is as a
result of the nature of the visitation frequencies to the use of the site as a care home,
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
51
and with regard to the amount of car ownership by residents. The application site is
noted as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3 (good), but bordering
on 5 and 6 which are excellent. For these reasons it is considered that the quantum of
car parking would be appropriate, and would not lead to unacceptable harm to the safety
and free flow of the surrounding highway network.
It is likely that the biggest user group of the car parking spaces is likely to be the staff of
the development. Accordingly, it is considered that to promote sustainable modes of
transport, and encourage a shift away from the use of the private vehicle, the
development should implement a Travel Plan. A Travel Plan should promote the use of
sustainable transportation modes of transport to be utilised by staff members. It is
therefore considered appropriate that a condition be attached accordingly to ensure that
the Travel Plan is implemented and retained on site. Furthermore, monitoring of the
success of the Travel Plan shall also be undertaken and a requirement is included in any
such condition. Accordingly, it is considered reasonable that a condition to such affect is
recommended.
An objection has been received relating to the vehicular access to the site, which
concerns the safety implications it would have on the students attending Alpha
Preparatory School. The objections notes that the access to the rear car park would be
located directly adjacent to the common boundary with the Alpha Preparatory School
resulting in visibility concerns, and that students area frequently walked past this
entrance from the Tesco‟s Superstore Car park (which the Alpha School apparently have
an agreement with for parents to park in to drop off and pick up children). Alpha
Preparatory School has also noted that the access to the application site would be
directly adjacent to the fire escape location.
With regard to the visibility of vehicles existing/entering the site, this relationship would
be an existing situation at the site. Whilst is acknowledged that there is likely to be more
vehicles accessing the site, it would be unlikely to exacerbate the existing situation to a
point where this would impact pedestrian and highway safety. Firstly, it appears that the
fence located on the common boundary is in the ownership of the Alpha Preparatory
School, and as such would be within their remit to alter the fence to improve the visibility
of the access point. However, a condition is recommended for further details relating to
boundary treatment for the site, so any boundary treatment on the applicants property
would be able to be considered further at that time. With regard to the objection stating
that proposed access arrangements would compromise pedestrian safety, specifically
those students that are walked from the Tesco Superstore Carpark to the Alpha
Preparatory School, having to walk past the access. The access to the site is existing,
and as noted previously, whilst there will be a noticeable increase in comings and goings
from the site compared to the existing authorised use, the nature of the proposed use is
not identified as a high use in terms of traffic generation. Furthermore, given that the
students of Alpha Preparatory are utilising the pedestrian walkway, usual road rules
would apply. Lastly, it is noted that the students are walked to the school from the Tesco
Superstore Carpark, which suggests there is adult supervision.
Notwithstanding the above, any potential conflicts between the operators of the
proposed care home and the Alpha Preparatory School could be someone mitigated by
implementing a servicing plan for the site. This would be a management strategy that
would dictate when serving and deliveries of the site would occur during the day. This
would then allow servicing and deliveries to site to occur outside of hours that are when
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
52
students are to be either dropped off or picked up from the school, and as such walking
across the front of the application site. It is therefore considered reasonable that a
condition be attached to secure a servicing and delivery plan to be agreed with the Local
Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development.
Furthermore, a condition is recommended to be attached to secure details of the
boundary treatment (of all boundaries) to ensure that the most appropriate treatment be
utilised along the common boundary with the Alpha Preparatory School.
It is noted that the scheme would provide a satisfactory level of cycle storage. Subject to
appropriate detailing of this structure, this would be acceptable. A condition is therefore
considered appropriate to require details of this structure, and has been recommended
accordingly.
Servicing and Refuse storage
The proposed refuse and recycling facility is located on the western side elevation
fronting onto the access way to the rear car park. This would be located internally within
the building.
The location of this is considered to be appropriate as it would ensure a secure location
that would not be harmful to the appearance of the area or conflict with the amenities of
neighbouring properties. The Management of the development will ensure that this is
brought to street for collection and then returned to the storage facility after collection. A
condition is recommended to ensure that bins are only brought out on collection day,
and shall be stored securely within the proposed storage area on all other days.
Access
The application site is currently accessed via a dropped kerb fronting onto Hindes Road.
The development would continue to be accessed from Hindes Road and via the existing
dropped kerb at the western end of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposed
servicing, subject to appropriate conditions, would be satisfactory and would accord with
the Development Plan policies.
Sustainability and Climate Change
Paragraphs 96-98 of the NPPF relate to decentralised energy, renewable and low
carbon energy. Chapter 5 of the London Plan contains a set of policies that require
developments to make the fullest contribution to the mitigation of, and adaptation to,
climate change, and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically, policy 5.2 sets
out an energy hierarchy for assessing applications, as set out below:
1) Be lean: use less energy
2) Be clean: supply energy efficiently
3) Be green: use renewable energy
Policy 5.3 seeks to ensure that future developments meet the highest standards of
sustainable design and construction, whilst policies 5.9-5.15 support climate change
adaptation measures.
As part of the Design and Access Statement, the applicant has submitted a certain level
of information with regard to the sustainability of the scheme. It states that the proposed
development would include measures to ensure that the 40% improvement on Building
Regulations would be met. The sustainability statement goes onto state that the
development would look to use sustainably sourced construction materials. Furthermore,
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
53
the construction of development would be undertaken using materials that would insure
food thermal performance and generally well performing buildings from an energy
consumption use. Lastly, the proposed new build would incorporate new technologies
such as Photovoltaics to reduce energy demands.
The methodology for the proposed Energy Strategy accords with the hierarchy set out
within the London Plan and demonstrates how the minimum savings in carbon
emissions against Building Control targets would be attempted to be achieved on site.
The submitted information states that the proposed development would meet the 40%
requirements as set down in the London Plan 2015. Notwithstanding this, a further, more
detailed Energy/Sustainability report would need to be presented to provide calculations
as to how the 40% improvement on Building Regulations, as required under the London
Plan (2015), would be achieved on site. Accordingly, a condition is recommended.
Subject to such a condition, it is considered that the proposed development would
therefore accord with the guidance and policies listed above.
Flood Risk and Development
The site is not located within a flood zone. However, is located within a Critical Drainage
Area and given the potential for the site to result in higher levels of water discharge into
the surrounding drains, could have an impact on the capacity of the surrounding water
network to cope with higher than normal levels of rainfall. It is noted that an objection
has been received in relation to flood risk to neighbouring sites, as a result of the
increase in footprint and also the change in levels from the application site to
neighbouring properties.
The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment in an attempt to demonstrate that
the proposed development would not result in, or exacerbate flood risk either within the
site or wider area. The Council‟s Drainage Team has commented on the application and
recommended conditions to ensure that development does not increase flood risk on or
near the site and would not result in unacceptable levels of surface water run-off. It is
considered reasonable that this matter could be addressed by way of appropriately
worded safeguarding conditions. Subject to safeguarding conditions the development
would accord with National Planning Policy, The London Plan policy 5.12.B/C/D, and
policy DM10 of the DMP.
Equalities Statement
Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 created the public sector equality duty.
Section149 states:(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need
to:
(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that
is prohibited by or under this Act;
(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant
protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic and persons who do not share it.
When making policy decisions, the Council must take account of the equality duty and in
particular any potential impact on protected groups.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
54
On balance, it is considered that the proposal would have no impact with regard to
section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010.
Trees and Development
It is noted that the application site is not located within a conservation area, and none of
the trees located within, or adjacent to the site are protected by a Tree Protection Order.
Accordingly, the Local Planning Authority is unable to protect the trees that are located
within the development property. However, it is encouraged that existing trees and
vegetation be retained where possible, the applicant has submitted a tree plan and also
a soft landscaping plan. The details submitted demonstrate that where possible, trees
are being retained within the site, which most notably are along the flank and rear
boundaries. However, some will be moved as part of the scheme. The applicant has
submitted a landscaping plan, which indicates where the soft landscaping would be
located within the site.
As mentioned previously, the application site is predominantly hard landscaped. As part
of the planning application, it is proposed to introduce significant amount of soft
landscaping, which includes the provision of further trees within the front and rear of the
property. The proposed introduction of the trees into the development site both
enhances the appearance of the development and also its appearance within the
streetscene. Furthermore, the introduction of the trees into the development would also
assist in increasing the ecological and biodiversity value of the property, which is
discussed further below.
Subject to such a condition, the proposal would be therefore accord with policy 7.21 of
The London Plan 2015 and policy DM22 of the DMP.
Ecology and Biodiversity
The application site is located within a predominantly urbanised area with no recognised
biodiversity or ecological value. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been submitted
in support of the application, which has assessed the site in terms of the existing level of
biodiversity (inclusive of both flora and fauna) within the site. The surveys that have
been undertaken are thorough, and have concluded that that no protected species have
been found on the site. It is noted that as the site is predominantly hardstanding, and
currently offers very little value in terms of ecological and biodiversity benefits.
The information submitted has been reviewed by the Councils Biodiversity Officer who
considers that, for the most, the information and assessments that have been
undertaken are fair and reasonable. Each of the submitted reports make a number of
recommendations, and subject to these recommendations being condition to be
implemented to improve habitats for birds, bats and invertebrates, the application would
be acceptable. It is noted within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal that vegetation
disturbance should ideally be undertaken outside the period March to August inclusive,
as this bird breeding season and nesting birds (protected by law) could be using trees
and shrubs. If there is no alternative the site should be visited in the 24 hours prior to
vegetation removal by a suitably qualified ecologist. If nesting birds are found all
activities in that locality must stop until the chicks are fledged. A condition is
recommended to secure this.
The submitted landscaping documents provides details of proposed bird and bat boxes
within the development. However, they are considered to not be suitable for the site or fit
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
55
for purpose. Notwithstanding this, a condition is suggested to require revised detail of
how these would be provided for on the site. Furthermore, submitted information should
cater for local biodiversity action plan species adapted to urban living such as house
sparrow and swift. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate that a condition be attached
requiring the recommendations to be implemented, and as such the application would be
acceptable in terms of ecology and biodiversity.
It is noted that Japanese Knotweed has been identified within the site, which is noted as
being a highly invasive species, listed under Wildlife and Countryside Act. Prior to any
development (construction or demolition) a detailed management plan must be
submitted to, and approved, by the Local Planning Authority. To a lesser invasive
species, Buddleia has been confirmed as being on site. Care must be taken when
removing this from the application site so as not increase seed dispersal.
A
Management and Method Strategy has been condition to ensure its appropriate removal
has been recommended accordingly.
Subject to such conditions, the proposed development would comply with policies DM20
and DM21 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
Land Contamination and Remediation
The NPPF (paragraph 121) requires LPAs to ensure that the site is suitable for the new
uses proposed, taking account of ground conditions including pollution arising from
previous uses. Adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person,
should be presented. This reflects the requirements of policy DM15 of the DMP, which
also requires an investigation of the hazards posed and appropriate.
The application is accompanied by a Geo-Environmental Assessment [GEA], which
summarises the extent of the any land contamination on the site. The GEA has been
developed based on environmental information for the site obtained during various
ground investigations. The report acknowledges that further information, in the form of
contamination, should be provided and agreed with the LPA prior to the commencement
of works on-site. The Council‟s Environmental Health Team has reviewed the GEA and
consider this to be satisfactory. However, they have commented that ongoing
investigations will need to be undertaken and accordingly safeguarding conditions are
recommended to be attached.
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
Policy 7.3 of The London Plan (2015) seeks to ensure that developments should
address security issues and provide safe and secure environments. Policy DM1 of the
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013 seeks to ensure that the
assessment of design and layout of new development proposals will have regard to the
arrangements for safe access and movement to and within the site.
The development proposes a well-designed scheme and it is considered that this would
provide increased levels of security for the site. Given the intended use of the site as a
care home, specific industry standards are required to be met to ensure the safety and
security of the future occupiers of the site. Accordingly, the proposed development,
much like as existing, would provide a secure location for occupiers and would not result
in anti-social behaviour.
Consultation Responses
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
56
The following points have been summarised from objections received directly by the
Local Planning Authority.
Alpha Preparatory School
 Overlooking into the grounds and toilets of the Preparatory School
There would be some overlooking into this property. However, the applicant is amenable
to increasing the screening along this common boundary. Details of this has been
secured by way of a condition.

Loss of D1 use space within the area which would allow the expansion of the
neighbouring school.
The marketing evidence submitted in support of the property has demonstrated some
level of interest in the application site. However, over the marketing period, no formal
offer has been progressed.

Would create an imbalance within the area as there are too many retirement
homes within Hindes Road
Evidence indicates that there is still a need for this type of housing within borough. There
is no principle objection to this use within the area.
 Disruption to children in the adjacent school as a result of the construction noise.
There would be some disruption to the occupiers of the adjoining Alpha Preparatory
School. However, conditions to mitigate these impacts have been attached, which would
limit the hours of construction, times of deliveries to the site etc. In any case, the works
would be temporary in nature.
 Potential harm to health with asbestos within the existing buildings.
Should there be asbestos within the existing buildings, this would need to be removed
from the site by approved contractors and in accordance with the relevant legislation.

Amount of car parking, and the location of this to the rear of the site results in an
increase in vehicles along this common boundary which would cause nuisance
The use of the property as a care home is not a high traffic generator. In any case, the
introduction of car parking, and the proposed quantum would not result in an
unacceptable nuisance to the Alpha Preparatory School.

Many parents in the car park of the Tescos Superstore (with their permission),
and walk children to Alpha Preparatory School, and would have to cross the busy
entrance way.
The use of the property is not a high traffic generator. A condition requiring a service
plan has been attached, would at least limit the amount of deliveries/servicing that would
take place when students are entering or leaving the Alpha Preparatory School.

Entrance to the application site is located directly adjacent to the School‟s east
fire escape location.
This would still be available to be used. It is not proposed to build over this. The
proposed development would need to ensure compliance with the Building Regulations
which guide fire and emergency access.
 Loss of fine examples of late Victorian architecture.
It is acknowledged that the proposed development would result in the loss of the existing
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
57
properties, which are quality example of Victorian architecture. However, there is no
policy protection for the buildings, and as such, consent is not required to demolish
them.
Wider Neighbour Consultation
 Loss of the D1 floorspace as there is a demand for school and nursery places
The application would result in a loss of the D1 floor space. However, the applicant has
followed the guidance set out within Policy DM46 of the Harrow Development
Management Polices Local Plan (2013). This is set out in section 1 of the above report.

The location of the driveway is completely blind for drives and pedestrians due to
the existing fence on Alpha Preparatory School.
Addressed under Section 5 of the above report

Loss of the existing properties that are an example of Victorian architecture, and
would detrimental to the local area.
It is acknowledged that the proposed development would result in the loss of the existing
properties, which are quality example of Victorian architecture. However, there is no
policy protection for the buildings, and as such, consent is not required to demolish
them.
 Discussions in place looking to purchase the property.
The marketing evidence submitted in support of the property has demonstrated some
level of interest in the application site. However, over the marketing period, no formal
offer has been progressed.
CONCLUSION
The principle of providing a care home on the site in replacement of the existing hotel is
considered to be acceptable. The proposed development would result in an efficient use
of the existing site and would provide care housing for older people within the borough
for which there is policy need. It is considered that the proposed building would have an
acceptable design and external appearance and would not have an undue impact on the
character and appearance of the area or the residential amenity of neighbouring
occupiers. Indeed the proposed development would have a much more appropriate
appearance within the site and streetscene than the existing building, which is ad-hoc
and piecemeal in appearance. The proposal would provide appropriate living conditions
for the future occupiers of the development. In addition to this, the details submitted in
relation to landscaping, boundary treatment, levels, the environmental enhancement
scheme and cycle parking are considered to be acceptable.
For all the reasons considered above, and weighing up the development plan policies
and proposals, and other material considerations including comments received in
response to notification and consultation as set out above, this application is
recommended for grant.
CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission.
REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
58
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: 9070/15 (REV A), 9071/15, 9072/15, 9074/15, 9075/15,
9076/15, 9077/15, 9078/15, NL-2146-03-AC-001 (REV A), NL-2146-03-AC-003 (REV B),
NL-2146-03-AC-101 (REV C), NL-2146-03-AC-004 (REV A), NL-2146-03-AC-110 (REV
D), NL-2146-03-AC-111 (REV D), NL-2146-03-AC-112 (REV D), NL-2146-03-AC-114
(REV D), NL-2146-03-AC-114 (REV C), NL-2146-03-AC-130 (REV D), NL-2146-03-AC131 (REV E), NL-2146-03-AC-132 (REV E), NL-2146-03-AC-140 (REV D), NL-2146-03AC-151 (REV H), NL-2146-03-AC-155 (REV E), NL-2146-03-AC-156 (REV E), NL-214603-AC-160 (REV F), MCS1167.GA.000 (REV P01), MCS1167.GA.001 (REV P03),
MCS1167.GA.002 (REV P01), MCS1167.GA.003 (REV P01), MCS1167.GA.004 (REV
P01), MCS1167.GA.005 (REV P01), MCS1167.GA.400 (REV P01), Landscape Strategy
(REV P01), OXF8989-R-001b, CCLO2663.BX16, 8753/01 (REV A), 8753/02,
JTK/8753/jk, Planning Statement, Transport Assessment, Travel Plan, Statement of
Community Involvement, Drainage Report (March 2015), PGJB/HJH/1403/81629
(August 2015), PGJB/HJH/1403/81629.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the development hereby
permitted shall not proceed above 150mm above ground level until details and samples
of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted (but not
limited) below have been submitted, provided on-site and approved in writing by, the
local planning authority:
a: External appearance of the care home
b: Cycle storage facility
c: Rear substation
d: Boundary Treatment
e: Hard landscaping
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall
thereafter be retained.
REASON: To enhance the appearance of the development and safeguard the character
and appearance of the area, in accordance with policies 7.4.B of The London Plan 2015
and policy DM1 of The Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are
required prior to commencement of development beyond damp proof course to ensure a
satisfactory form of development. Details are required PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT
OF DEVELOPMENT BEYOND 150MM ABOVE GROUND LEVEL as enforcement
action after time may be unfeasible.
4 Other than those shown on the approved drawings, no soil stacks, soil vent pipes,
flues, ductwork or any other pipework shall be fixed to the elevations of the buildings
hereby approved.
REASON: To enhance the appearance of the development and safeguard the character
and appearance of the area, in accordance with policies 7.4.B of The London Plan 2015
and policy DM1 of The Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
5 A landscape management plan, including species numbers/locations, long term
design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all
communal landscape areas shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority prior to the occupation of the development. The landscape
management plan shall be carried out as approved. Details are required prior to
occupation to ensure a satisfactory form of development.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
59
REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the
appearance of the development in accordance with policy DM22 of The Development
Management Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required PRIOR TO OCCUPATION
to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid potentially unenforceable
conditions.
6 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall
be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the
building, or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any existing or
new trees or shrubs which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the
development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be
replaced in the next planting season, with others of a similar size and species, unless
the local authority agrees any variation in writing.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the
appearance of the development in accordance with policy DM22 of The Development
Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
7 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, the development
hereby permitted shall not commence beyond 150mm above ground level until there has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailed
sections at metric scale 1:20 through all external reveals of the windows and doors on
each of the elevations. The development shall be completed in accordance with the
approved details and shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: To enhance the appearance of the development and safeguard the character
and appearance of the area, in accordance with policy 7.4.B of The London Plan 2015
and policy DM1 of The Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are
required PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT BEYOND 150MM
ABOVE GROUND LEVEL to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid
potentially unenforceable conditions.
8 Prior to any development on site, a scheme for tree protection measures shall be
submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
details shall be implemented prior to any works commencing on site, and shall remain in
situ until after the physical works on site have been completed.
REASON: To protect the health and wellbeing of the trees located on site, which are
subject to Tree Protection Orders in accordance with policy DM22 of the Development
Management Policies Local Plan (2013). Details are required prior to commencement of
development to ensure a satisfactory form of development. Details are required PRIOR
TO COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT as enforcement action after time may be
unfeasible.
9 Prior to commencement of development, a further Bat Survey shall be undertaken,
with its finding and outcomes submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Outcomes and recommendations within the submitted information thereby
approved shall be implemented and retained thereafter.
REASON: In the interests of protecting biodiversity within the site in accordance with
policy DM21 of the Harrow DMP (2013). Details are required PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT to ensure a satisfactory form of development.
10 If the development hereby permitted commences during the bird breeding season
(March to August) inclusive, trees and buildings within the site shall be examined for
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
60
nests or signs of breeding birds. Should an active bird‟s nest be located, the advice of a
suitably qualified ecologist shall be sought with the findings and recommendations of the
ecologist submitted for review to the local planning authority within 10 working days of
the location of the birds nest. No further development shall take place without the written
approval of the local planning authority.
REASON: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with
policy DM20 of the Councils Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
11 The building hereby permitted shall not be constructed above beyond 150mm above
ground level until details of bat boxes within the building and bird bricks/boxes within
suitable trees have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The details approved shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with
policy DM21 of the Councils Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
Details are required PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT BEYOND
150MM ABOVE GROUND LEVEL to ensure a satisfactory form of development and
avoid potentially unenforceable conditions.
12 The development hereby permitted, shall not proceed BEYOND 150MM ABOVE
GROUND LEVEL until a noise report in accordance with the requirements of
BS4142/2014 has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The details thereby approved shall be retained as such thereafter.
REASON: To protect the amenity of neighbouring and future occupiers in accordance
with policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Plan (2013). Details are
required PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT BEYOND 150MM
ABOVE GROUND LEVEL to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid
potentially unenforceable conditions.
13 Notwithstanding the submitted Geo-Environmental Report, a further (Phase II)
investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the
planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the
nature and extent of any contamination on the site. The contents of the scheme are
subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and
risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the
findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the
Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:
(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:
- human health,
- property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets,
woodland and service lines and pipes,
- adjoining land,
- groundwaters and surface waters,
- ecological systems,
- archaeological sites and ancient monuments;
(iii) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment and, based on
these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation
measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
(iv) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to
demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy are complete and
identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages,
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
61
maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
No development shall commence on site until details of the scheme of remedial action is
submitted to the Council, for approval in writing, and completed on site as approved.
REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land
and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property
and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely
without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in
accordance with policy 5.21.B of the London Plan 2015 and policy DM15 of the
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT to ensure a satisfactory form of development.
14 Prior to occupation of the development, a verification report demonstrating
completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the
effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the
local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring
carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site
remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a 'long term monitoring
and maintenance plan') for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance
and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for
the reporting of this to the local planning authority. The long-term monitoring and
maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.
REASON: To protect groundwater and future end users of the site, in accordance with
the Environmental Impact Assessment and in line with the requirements of the NPPF,
policy 5.21.B of the London Plan 2015 and policy DM15 of the Development
Management Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required PRIOR TO OCCUPATION
to ensure a satisfactory form of development.
15 The level of noise emitted from any plant, machinery and equipment shall be lower
than the existing background level by at least 10 LpA. Noise levels shall be determined
at one metre from the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive premises. The
measurements and assessments shall be made in accordance with B.S. 4142:2014. The
background noise level shall be expressed as the lowest LA90 (10 minutes) during
which the plant is or may be in operation.
Within three months of the date of this permission, measurements of the noise from the
plant must be taken and a report/impact assessment demonstrating that the plant (as
installed) meets the design requirements, shall be submitted to be approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that adequate precautions are taken to avoid noise nuisance and
to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DM1.h of
the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
16 All constituent parts of the plant shall be maintained and replaced in whole or in part
as often is required to ensure compliance with the noise levels approved by under
Condition 15 above.
REASON: To ensure that adequate precautions are taken to avoid noise nuisance and
to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DM1.h of
the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
17 Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to the commencement of the development
hereby permitted, details for a scheme for works for the disposal of sewage, surface
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
62
water and surface water attenuation and storage works on site as a result of the
approved development shall be submitted to the local planning authority to be approved
in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details
and shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: To ensure that the development has adequate drainage facilities, to reduce
and mitigate the effects of flood risk and would not impact the character and appearance
of the development, in accordance the recommendations of Core Strategy (2012) policy
CS1, the NPPF and policies DM1, DM9 & DM10 of the Harrow Development
Management Local Policies Plan (2013). Details are required PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT to ensure a satisfactory form of development
and that enforcement action after this may no longer be feasible.
18 Before the hard surfacing hereby permitted is brought into use the surfacing shall
EITHER be constructed from porous materials, for example, gravel, permeable block
paving or porous asphalt, OR provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the
hard surfacing to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the site.
Please note: guidance on permeable paving has now been published by the
Environment Agency.
REASON: To ensure that adequate and sustainable drainage facilities are provided, and
to prevent any increased risk of flooding in accordance with policy DM22 of The
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
19 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details relating to
the long term maintenance and management of the on-site drainage shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details thereby approved
shall be retained thereafter. Such a management/maintenance document shall fall with a
„Owners Manual‟ to provide greater long term functionality and should include (but not
limited to):
 Location of all SudS techniques on site
 Summary of how they work and how they can be damaged
 Maintenance requirements (a maintenance plan) and a maintenance record. This will
be determined by the type of SuDS but should include Inspection frequency; debris
removal; vegetation management; sediment management; structural rehabilitation /
repair; infiltration surface reconditioning
 Explanation of the consequences of not carrying out the specified maintenance
 Identification of areas where certain activities which might impact on the SuDS are
prohibited
 An action plan for dealing with accidental spillages
 Advice on what to do if alterations are to be made to a development if service
companies undertake excavations or other works which might affect the SuDS
The manual should also include brief details of the design concepts and criteria for the
SuDS scheme and how the owner or operator must ensure that any works undertaken
on a development do not compromise this.
REASON: To ensure that the development has adequate drainage facilities, to reduce
and mitigate the effects of flood risk and would not impact the character and appearance
of the development, in accordance the recommendations of Core Strategy (2012) policy
CS1, the NPPF and policies DM1, DM9 & DM10 of the Harrow Development
Management Local Policies Plan (2013). Details are required PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT to ensure a satisfactory form of development.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
63
20 Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved on site beyond ground
floor damp proof course, additional details of a strategy for the provision of communal
facilities for television reception (eg. Aerials, dishes and other such equipment) shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall
include the specific size and location of all equipment. The approved details shall be
implemented prior to the first occupation of the building and shall be retained thereafter.
No other television reception equipment shall be introduced onto the walls or the roof of
the building without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: In order to prevent the proliferation of individual television reception items on
the building which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the building and
the visual amenity of the area, thereby according with policy 7.4.B of The London Plan
2015 and policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan
2013. Details are required PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT to
ensure a satisfactory form of development.
21 Notwithstanding the information submitted, no development shall take place,
including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved
Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall
provide for:
i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors
ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials
iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development
iv. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction
v. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction
works
REASON: To ensure that the construction of the development does not unduly impact
on the amenities of the existing occupiers of the properties on the site, thereby according
with policies DM1, DM42, DM43 and DM44 of the Harrow Development Management
Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY
WORKS, INCLUDING DEMOLITION, to ensure a satisfactory form of development.
22 Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, a full Delivery and
Service Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The Delivery and Service Plan thereby approved shall be adhered to
thereafter.
REASON: To ensure that the development does not harm the safety and free flow of the
public highway, thereby according with policies DM1, DM42, DM43 and DM44 of the
Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required
PRIOR TO OCCUPATION to ensure a satisfactory form of development.
23 The refuse and waste bins shall be stored at all times, other than on collection days,
within the designated refuse storage areas as shown on the approved plans.
REASON: To enhance the appearance of the development and safeguard the character
and appearance of the area, in accordance with policies 7.4.B of The London Plan 2015
and policy DM1 of The Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
24 The premises shall only be used for the purpose as set out in the application (Care
Home) and for no other purpose, including any other purpose in Class C2 of the
Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or in any
provision equivalent to that Class in any Statutory Instrument revoking and re-enacting
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
64
that order with or without modification).
REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and the character of the
locality and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with policies DM1 and DM42
of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
25 No site works or development shall commence until details of the levels of the
building(s), road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to the adjoining land and highway(s), and
any other changes proposed in the levels of the site, have been submitted to, and
approved by, the local planning authority.
REASON: To ensure that the works are carried out at suitable levels in relation to the
highway and adjoining properties in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring
residents, the appearance of the development, drainage, gradient of access and future
highway improvement, in accordance with policies DM1 and DM10 of the Councils
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT to ensure a satisfactory form of development.
26 Notwithstanding the submitted information, prior to the use of the development
hereby permitted, a framework travel plan, including a detailed scheme for vehicle pick
up and drop off times for the development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The travel plan shall be implemented in accordance with
the approved details from the commencement of the use on site and retained thereafter.
REASON: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and to ensure that
highway safety is not prejudiced in accordance with policies DM1 & DM42 of the Harrow
Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). Details are required PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE USE to ensure a satisfactory form of development
and avoid potentially unenforceable conditions.
27 No construction / works in connection with the proposed development shall be
carried out before 0800hrs or after 1800hrs on weekdays and Saturdays or at any time
on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
REASON: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers, thereby according
with policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
28 Within 3 months (or other such period agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority) of the first occupation of the development a post construction assessment
shall be undertaken for each phase demonstrating compliance with the approved Energy
Strategy and Sustainability Strategy which thereafter shall be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority for written approval.
REASON: To ensure the delivery of a sustainable development in accordance with
National Planning Policy Framework, policies 5.2.B/C/D/E of The London Plan 2015,
policy D12 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan 2015.
29 None of the individual units of residential accommodation at the development shall
be used otherwise than as a private place of residence for a person or persons of whom
at least one must be a “qualified person” (defined below) at the date of his or her first
occupation of the unit in question‟
For the purposes of this condition “a qualified person” means a person who is or has
attained the age of 70 years and thereby in need of personal care by reason of old age
or by reason of disablement. (Whether or not such person suffers from a registered
disability under the terms of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970). An
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
65
occupier of one of the individual units of residential accommodation who is not a
“qualified person” but who shares or previously shared the accommodation with a
“qualified person” (e.g. a spouse or surviving spouse) must have attained the age of at
least 60 years.
REASON: To ensure the development continues to cater for those users requiring extra
care housing, and thereby maintaining an appropriate housing choice and offer in the
borough, thereby according with policy 3.8 of The London Plan 2015 and policy DM29 of
the Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
INFORMATIVES
1 The following policies and guidance are relevant to this decision:
National Planning Policy and Guidance:
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
The London Plan (2015):
3.1 Ensuring Equal Life Chances for All
3.2 Improving Health and Addressing Health Inequalities
3.3 Increasing Housing Supply
3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments
3.8 Housing Choice
3.17 Health and Social Care Facilities
5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions
5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction
5.6 Decentralised Energy in Development Proposals
5.7 Renewable Energy
5.9 Overheating and Cooling
5.10 Urban Greening
5.12 Flood Risk Management
5.13 Sustainable Drainage
5.15 Water Use and Supplies
5.21 Contaminated Land
6.3 Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity
6.9 Cycling
6.10 Walking
6.12 Road Network Capacity
6.13 Parking
7.2 An Inclusive Environment
7.3 Designing Out Crime
7.4 Local Character
7.5 Public Realm
7.6 Architecture
Local Development Framework
Harrow Core Strategy 2012
CS1 Overarching Policy
CS2 Harrow and Wealdstone
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013
DM1 Achieving a High Standard of Development
DM2 Achieving Lifetime Neighbourhoods
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
66
DM12 Sustainable Design and Layout
DM15 Prevention and Remediation of Contaminated Land
DM20 Protection of Biodiversity and Access to Nature
DM22 Trees and Landscaping
DM45 Waste Management
Supplementary Planning Documents
Supplementary Planning Document: Access For All 2006
Supplementary Planning Document: Accessible Homes 2010
Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide 2010
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Sustainable Design & Construction 2014
Sudbury Hill Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy
2 INFORMATIVE:
Statement under Article 31 (1)(cc) of The Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended)
This decision has been taken in accordance with paragraphs 187-189 of The National
Planning Policy Framework. Pre-application advice was sought and provided and the
submitted application was in accordance with that advice.
3 MAYOR CIL
Please be advised that approval of this application by Harrow Council will attract a
liability payment £101,850.00 of Community Infrastructure Levy. This charge has been
levied under Greater London Authority CIL charging schedule and s211 of the Planning
Act 2008.
Harrow Council as CIL collecting authority on commencement of development will be
collecting the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
Your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £101,850.00 for the
application, based on the levy rate for Harrow of £35/sqm and the stated increase in
floorspace of 2910m2
You are advised to visit the planning portal website where you can download the
appropriate document templates.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil
4 HARROW CIL
Harrow has a Community Infrastructure Levy which will apply Borough wide for certain
uses of over 100sqm gross internal floor space. The CIL has been examined by the
Planning Inspectorate and found to be legally compliant. It will be charged from the 1st
October 2013. Any planning application determined after this date will be charged
accordingly.
Harrow's Charges are:
Residential (Use Class C3) - £110 per sqm;
Hotels (Use Class C1), Residential Institutions except Hospitals, (Use Class C2),
Student Accommodation, Hostels and HMOs (Sui generis)- £55 per sqm;
Retail (Use Class A1), Financial & Professional Services (Use Class A2), Restaurants
and Cafes (Use Class A3) Drinking Establishments (Use Class A4) Hot Food
Takeaways (Use Class A5) - £100 per sqm
All other uses - Nil.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
67
The Harrow CIL Liability for this development is: £160,050.00.
5 CONSIDERATE CONTRACTOR CODE OF PRACTICE
The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements in the attached Considerate
Contractor Code of Practice, in the interests of minimising any adverse effects arising
from building operations, and in particular the limitations on hours of working.
6 PARTY WALL ACT:
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify and obtain formal
agreement from adjoining owner(s) where the building owner intends to carry out
building
work which involves:
1. work on an existing wall shared with another property;
2. building on the boundary with a neighbouring property;
3. excavating near a neighbouring building,
and that work falls within the scope of the Act.
Procedures under this Act are quite separate from the need for planning permission or
building regulations approval.
“The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: Explanatory booklet” is available free of charge from:
Communities and Local Government Publications, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB
Please quote Product code: 02 BR 00862 when ordering
Also available for download from the CLG website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/133214.pdf
Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237
Textphone: 0870 1207 405
E-mail: communities@twoten.com
7 COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING CONDITIONS
IMPORTANT: Compliance With Planning Conditions Requiring Submission and
Approval
of Details Before Development Commences
- You will be in breach of planning permission if you start development without complying
with a condition requiring you to do something before you start. For example, that a
scheme or details of the development must first be approved by the Local Planning
Authority.
- Carrying out works in breach of such a condition will not satisfy the requirement to
commence the development within the time permitted.
- Beginning development in breach of a planning condition will invalidate your planning
permission.
- If you require confirmation as to whether the works you have carried out are
acceptable, then you should apply to the Local Planning Authority for a certificate of
lawfulness.
8 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DRAINAGE
The applicant is advised that surface water run-off should be controlled as near to its
source as possible through a sustainable drainage approach to surface water
management (SUDS). SUDS are an approach to managing surface water run-off which
seeks to mimic natural drainage systems and retain water on or near the site as
opposed to traditional drainage approaches which involve piping water off site as
quickly as possible.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
68
SUDS involve a range of techniques including soakaways, infiltration trenches,
permeable pavements, grassed swales, ponds and wetlands. SUDS offer significant
advantages over conventional piped drainage systems in reducing flood risk by
attenuating the rate and quantity of surface water run-off from a site, promoting
groundwater recharge, and improving water quality and amenity. Where the intention is
to use soak ways they should be shown to work through an appropriate assessment
carried out under Building Research Establishment (BRE) Digest 365. Support for the
SUDS approach to managing surface water run-off is set out in the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF) and its accompanying technical guidance, as well as the
London Plan. Specifically, the NPPF (2012) gives priority to the use of sustainable
drainage systems in the management of residual flood risk and the technical guidance
confirms that the use of such systems is a policy aim in all flood zones. Policy 5.13 of
the London Plan (2012) requires development to utilise sustainable drainage systems
unless there are practical reasons for not doing so. Sustainable drainage systems cover
the whole range of sustainable approaches to surface drainage management. They are
designed to control surface water run-off close to where it falls and mimic natural
drainage as closely as possible. Therefore, almost any development should be able to
include a sustainable drainage scheme based on these principles. The applicant can
contact Harrow Drainage Section for further information.
9 REQUEST TO REMOVE SITE NOTICE
A yellow Site Notice relating to this planning application describing the development and
alerting interested parties of the development has been placed in the vicinity of the
application site. You should now REMOVE this Site Notice.
Plan Nos: 9070/15 (REV A), 9071/15, 9072/15, 9074/15, 9075/15, 9076/15, 9077/15,
9078/15, NL-2146-03-AC-001 (REV A), NL-2146-03-AC-003 (REV B), NL-2146-03-AC101 (REV C), NL-2146-03-AC-004 (REV A), NL-2146-03-AC-110 (REV D), NL-2146-03AC-111 (REV D), NL-2146-03-AC-112 (REV D), NL-2146-03-AC-114 (REV D), NL-214603-AC-114 (REV C), NL-2146-03-AC-130 (REV D), NL-2146-03-AC-131 (REV E), NL2146-03-AC-132 (REV E), NL-2146-03-AC-140 (REV D), NL-2146-03-AC-151 (REV H),
NL-2146-03-AC-155 (REV E), NL-2146-03-AC-156 (REV E), NL-2146-03-AC-160 (REV
F), MCS1167.GA.000 (REV P01), MCS1167.GA.001 (REV P03), MCS1167.GA.002
(REV P01), MCS1167.GA.003 (REV P01), MCS1167.GA.004 (REV P01),
MCS1167.GA.005 (REV P01), MCS1167.GA.400 (REV P01), Landscape Strategy (REV
P01), OXF8989-R-001b, CCLO2663.BX16, 8753/01 (REV A), 8753/02, JTK/8753/jk,
Planning Statement, Transport Assessment, Travel Plan, Statement of Community
Involvement, Drainage Report (March 2015), PGJB/HJH/1403/81629 (August 2015),
PGJB/HJH/1403/81629 (January 2016),
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
69
11-17 HINDES ROAD, HARROW
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
70
ITEM NO:
1/03
ADDRESS:
THE NURSERIES, CLAMP HILL, STANMORE
REFERENCE:
P/4823/15
DESCRIPTION:
REPLACEMENT
TWO
STOREY
BUILDING
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
USE
WITH
ANCILLARY
TRAINING
FACILITIES (CLASS D1), ANCILLARY OFFICES (CLASS B1),
ANCILLARY CAFE (CLASS A3) AND ANCILLARY SHOP (CLASS
A1); SINGLE STOREY BUILDINGS FOR HORTICULTURAL USE
AND ANCILLARY WORKSHOP (CLASS D1)
WARD:
HARROW WEALD
APPLICANT:
MR MICHAEL WEISER
AGENT:
RACKHAM PLANNING
CASE OFFICER:
PETER BARRON
EXPIRY DATE:
21ST MARCH 2016
GRANT planning permission subject to:
(i)
referral to the Greater London Authority (GLA); and
(ii)
conditions.
INFORMATION:
This application is reported to the Committee as the proposal involves more than 400 sq.
metres floorspace and the site area is more than 0.1 hectares and so falls outside of the
thresholds set by category 1(d) of the Council‟s Scheme of Delegation for the
determination of new development.
It is considered that, by reason of the cumulative floorspace of the proposed buildings,
the application falls within Part 3 (Development Which May Affecting Strategic Policies)
of the Schedule to The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 –
Category 3D development on Green Belt land which would involve the construction of a
building with a floorspace of more than 1,000m 2. The application has therefore been
referred to the Greater London Authority.
Statutory Return Type: Small Scale Major Development
Council Interest: No
Gross Existing Floorspace (GIA): 713m2
Net Proposed Floorspace: 382m2
GLA CIL (provisional): £13,370
Harrow CIL (provisional): Nil1
1
The Harrow CIL applies only to the following uses: residential (C3); hotels (C1); residential institutions (C2);
student accommodation, hostels and HMOs (sui generis); retail (A1); financial & professional services (A2);
restaurants & cafes (A3); drinking establishments (A4); and hot food take-aways (A5).
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
71
Site Description
 3.5 hectares site in horticultural use and located to the west of Clamp Hill and to the
east of Brookshill, Harrow Weald
 predominantly open site but contains a warehouse set upon a concrete plinth and
housing ancillary offices on two floors, café & facilities (713m 2), glass houses,
polytunnels and a fabric-enclosed metal pole structure (also set upon the concrete
plinth)
 a car park is located to the west of the site with vehicular access from Clamp Hill
 site bounded by: Honeysuckle House, The Haven, Oaklands, Chenies and Hillingdon
in Clamp Hill; and First Harrow Weald Scout Group in Brookshill
 a public footpath (public right of way no. 25) bounds the southern edge of the site
beyond which are situated properties in Brookshill Avenue and Clamp Hill
 site levels rise from south to north
 the whole of the site is within the Green Belt and the Harrow Weald Ridge Area of
Special Character; the undeveloped parts of the site form part of a Site of Importance
for Nature Conservation (SINC) rated as of borough importance (grade II)
 an area tree preservation order protects trees across this and the adjoining scout
sites; there are also a number of individual tree preservation orders
 the site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 1a
 it is understood that the site is shared by the Shaw Trust (a charity) and Jacques
Amand (a business)
Proposal Details
 a new two storey building for the Shaw Trust to replace the existing warehouse
(building A); the building would comprise the following uses ancillary to the site‟s
horticultural/agricultural use:
o on the ground floor: a reception office; florists & shop; café & servery; gallery
& display area; storage; plant preparation area; and toilets;
o on the first floor: a learning centre and training rooms; gallery & display area;
resources room; offices incl. kitchenette; and toilets
 a new single storey building for Jacques Amand to replace the fabric-enclosed metal
pole structure (building B) to the south of the warehouse building; the building would
be used to store plants and bulbs2
 a new single storey building for the Shaw Trust (building C) to the north of the
warehouse building; the building would provide a wood joinery and recycling area3
ancillary to the site‟s horticultural/agricultural use
 pergolas are proposed to part of the south side and across the whole length of the
north side of building A
 the combined proposed floorspace (when scaled from the drawings) is 1,095m2
2
See paragraph 3.4 of the submitted Planning Statement.
See paragraph 3.4 of the submitted Planning Statement.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
3
72
Supporting Information Documents Submitted with the Application
 Alternative Site Search
 Community Infrastructure Levy Additional Information Form
 Energy & Sustainability Statement
 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
 Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy
 Planning Statement
Revisions to Application following Submission
At the request of officers the description of the proposed development has been
amended to make specific reference to ancillary uses included – café (A3), shop (A1) as
well as training facilities (D1).
Relevant History
 EAST/596/93/CLE: Certificate of Lawful Existing Use – Use of Land as Horticulture;
an appeal against non-determination was lodged a public inquiry was held. The
appeal was dismissed in February 1995.
 EAST/596/98/CLP: Certificate of Lawful Proposed Development – Horticulture with
Ancillary Sales of Plants/Bulbs Potted & Dry Form Grown on Site & Ancillary Offices.
This application as not determined.
 P/2858/12: Certificate of Lawful Development (Existing): Use of the Land at Clamp
Hill as a Non-Residential Institution; refused 18th June 2013 for the following reason:
1. The evidence submitted in support of the application does not demonstrate that,
on the balance of probabilities, development comprising a material change in the
use of the land from horticulture to use as a non-residential institution (Class D1)
has taken place at the site for a continuous period of ten years proceeding the
date upon which the application was made. The physical characteristics of the
site, nature and intensity of the activities undertaken, and disposition of and use
of buildings within the site are consistent with its use for horticulture - within the
terms of S336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
 An appeal against this decision was dismissed 28th February 2014
Advertisement & Site Notices
 Harrow Times (Major Development) 31st December 2015 (Expiry 20th January 2016)
 First Site Notice Posted on Clamp Hill, 5th January 2016 (Expiry 26th January 2016)
 Second Site Notice (Amended Description) Posted on Clamp Hill, 18 th February 2016
(Expiry 10th March 2016)
First Notifications
Sent: 18 (24th December 2015)
Replies: 0
Expiry: 14th January 2016
Second Notifications (Amended Description)
Sent: 22 (3rd February 2016)
Replies: 0
Expiry: 24th February 2016
Rt. Hon Bob Blackman M.P. (summarised)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
73
I met the applicant last year to discuss his plans for the site. My constituent impressed
me with his desire to help others through his ownership of the land and to broaden the
scope of the project.
Arboricultural Officer
I don‟t think there are any significant tree issues re the proposals but the large TPO tree
would need protection during construction works, in particular the new joinery unit
proposed nearby. It could probably be dealt with via tree protection plan condition.
Biodiversity Officer
I am a little concerned about the degree of scientific rigour with which the Extended
Phase 1 Habitat Survey (September 2015) has been conducted by Abricon.
The desktop study does not include a biodiversity records data trawl from the local
biodiversity records office as recommended by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and
Environmental Management (CIEEM) in undertaking Preliminary Ecological Appraisals
(of which this survey is an example.).
This means no information has been forthcoming on (non-statutory) Sites of Importance
for Nature Conservation (SINCs) in the locality. Therefore no estimate of the impact of
the proposed development on these sites has been possible. Additionally, information
on recent historical biodiversity records for protected or otherwise notable species is also
absent. This information helps gauge the likelihood of occurrence of protected and
otherwise notable species in the locality.
There is anecdotal evidence of a badger sett near the site – I would expect to see this
protected species specifically considered in the appraisal with appropriate mitigation put
in place.
There is also a possibility of great crested newts (GCN) occurring as suitable habitat
occurs on or near the site. There are a number of ponds in the locality which might
support GCN. I believe sites in Brookshill and Harrow Weald Common have confirmed
reports of GCN. Although both sites are about 1km distance The Nurseries they are part
of a series of ponds extending into the Clamphill area. Therefore the Preliminary
Ecological Appraisal should include a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment.
The report‟s recommendations for bats (para. 6.1), nesting birds (para. 6.2) and
enhancement of features for wildlife (6.3) are fine and should be adopted in full.
Drainage Team (summarised)
Permission for connections to public sewers is required. Surface water discharge from
the site should be limited to 5 litres per second. Details of drainage layout, flow
restrictions and sustainable drainage systems (including a maintained plan) should be
submitted.
Greater London Authority (Mayor of London)
To be reported as addendum information.
Applicant’s Planning Statement (summarised)
The application has been submitted following pre-application discussions with Council
officers. The use of the site will remain primarily as horticultural with ancillary training
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
74
taking place. The training facilities are used by the Shaw Trust for adults with moderate
to severe learning disabilities to gain experience in horticulture. Clamp Hill is one of
several horticultural social enterprises run by Shaw Trust nationally. The Trust has been
located at Clamp Hill for a continuous period since September 2002, however the
horticultural use of the site dates back to 1993 when an application for a Certificate of
Lawful Use was submitted by Jacques Amand.
The design and appearance of the proposed buildings was discussed with officers at
pre-application stage. The proposal is compliant with Green Belt policies and so very
special circumstances do not need to be demonstrated. A BREEAM „very good‟ rating
would be achieved through a variety of methods. Bus stops on Common Road and
Brookshill are within 400 metres walking distance. There will be no tree removal and
rainwater harvesting is proposed. It has been demonstrated that there are no alternative
more suitable sites within the Borough.
APPRAISAL
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:
„If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to
be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with
the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
The Government has issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which
consolidates national planning policy and is a material consideration in the determination
of this application. The Government has also issued National Planning Practice
Guidance.
In this instance, the Development Plan comprises The London Plan (2015) and the Local
Plan. The Local Plan comprises as relevant to the site) the Harrow Core Strategy (2012),
the Development Management Policies Local Plan document (2013), the Site Allocations
Local Plan document (2013) and the accompanying Local Plan policies map.
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Background – Use of the Site and Pre-Application Advice
Green Belt Policy
Sequential Assessment
Ecology and Biodiversity
Trees
Landscaping
Design and Layout
Residential Amenity
Flood Risk
Sustainable Drainage
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions
Sustainable Design and Construction
Highway Safety and Parking
Heritage and Area of Special Character
Waste and Recycling
Background – Use of the Site and Pre-Application Advice
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
75
The question of the use of the site was considered most recently by the Planning
Inspector in connection with the appeal against the Council‟s decision to refuse
certificate of lawfulness application P/2858/12. The Inspector, in reaching his decision
that a D1 use had not been established on the site, noted that the site is shared by the
Shaw Trust (known as Shaw Trust Horticulture) and a commercial horticultural company
(Jacques Amand), and observed that:
“Having inspected the buildings and the land it is evident that the predominant
characteristic of the Clamp Hill site is still one of a horticultural nature. With its
glasshouses, cultivating tunnels, raised beds and general layout the site is
perceived as some sort of market garden which is definitely horticultural or
agricultural in character. Whilst accepting that the main building is more industrial,
rather than horticultural in appearance and that there are administrative/nonresidential institutional uses associated with the work of the Trust, the site is still
seen as being predominantly horticultural in character and appearance” (appeal
decision paragraph 15)
“I acknowledge that parts of the main building have some of the characteristics of
a training or day centre but the main purpose of the training relies on the use of
this agricultural land for horticultural purposes/training. The building is also used
commercially (by Jacques Amand) for the storage and sale of plants. This is
clearly a horticultural use. In my view, the use of the main building (and the use of
the rest of the site) for training purposes has not fundamentally altered the
agricultural or horticultural character or nature of the land. The glasshouses, the
other horticultural buildings and the planted areas all remain and result in the site
still being perceived as an agricultural/horticultural site” (appeal decision
paragraph 16).
The Inspector concluded:
“…I do not consider that, as a matter of fact and degree, the character of usage
relating to the vocational training has significantly altered the horticultural
appearance and nature of the site. In my view the training use of the land is
inextricably linked with the horticultural operations. It is these activities on the
land, together with the commercial horticultural operations which give the land its
predominant character” (appeal decision paragraph 19).
Following the appeal decision pre-application advice was sought for the demolition of
existing horticultural buildings and the erection replacement horticultural buildings.
Officers advised that:
 with the use of the site remaining horticultural (agricultural) the proposed buildings
would not be in principle inappropriate development;
 however due to intensification of the use of the site with improved training facilities a
sequential test would need to be carried out;
 the wood joinery and recycling area would not be directly related to horticulture and
would be inappropriate development;
 if permitted the development would be subject to a condition restricting training to be
ancillary to horticulture/agriculture;
 in terms of design/materials, timber cladding is preferred as the finish material to the
buildings; and
 a preliminary ecological assessment and tree survey/method statement would need
to be undertaken.
General advice as regards Secured by Design, sustainability and CIL was also provided.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
76
Green Belt Policy
Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should regard the
construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt but makes exceptions
for inter alia buildings for agriculture and forestry and the replacement of a building
provided that the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it
replaces. For the avoidance of doubt, and contrary to the applicant‟s assertion of the
site‟s status in the submitted Planning Statement, it should be noted that the NPPF
definition of previously developed land specifically excludes land that is or has been
occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; therefore the paragraph 89 exception for
limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites in
the Green Belt is not considered to be applicable to the subject site.
The NPPF makes it clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the
Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (paragraph
87). Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt
by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other
considerations (paragraph 88).
Policy 7.16 B of the London Plan (2015) states that development will be supported if it is
appropriate and helps to secure the objectives of improving the Green Belt. Core
Strategy (2012) Policy CS1 F states that the quality of the Green Belt shall not be
eroded by inappropriate uses or insensitive development.
Policy DM 16 D of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) states that
proposals for inappropriate redevelopment or which, for other reasons, would harm the
Green Belt will be refused in the absence of clearly demonstrated very special
circumstances.
Table 1 below shows the size (by various measures) of, and changes between, the
existing and proposed warehouse building A. It shows that there would be a modest
increase in floorspace but that overall footprint and volume would reduce. The ridge and
eaves height of this building would remain the same. It is considered that the proposed
building A is acceptable as an exception under NPPF paragraph 89 (fourth bullet point)
i.e. as a not materially larger replacement of an existing building.
Table 1: Two Storey Warehouse Building (A)
Existing
Proposed
2
Footprint:
521m
427m2
Floorspace (gross):
713m2
829m2
Ridge Height:
7m
7m
Eaves Height:
4.5m
4.5m
Volume:
2,995.75m3
2,455.25m3
Change
-94m2 (-18%)
+116m2 (+16%)
no change
no change
-540.5m3 (-18%)
Table 2 shows the size of the proposed new single storey building B. Although this new
building would in part replace an existing structure, that structure is not per se a building
and so building B cannot, it is considered, be acceptable as an exception under NPPF
paragraph 89 (fourth bullet point). However, as a building for horticultural use, it is
considered that proposed building B is acceptable as an exception under NPPF
paragraph 89 (first bullet point) i.e. as a building for agriculture.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
77
Table 2: Single Storey Jaques Amand Building (B)
Existing
Footprint:
n/a
Floorspace (gross):
n/a
Ridge Height:
n/a
Eaves Height:
3.15m
Volume:
n/a
Proposed
152m2
152m2
3.18m
2.9m
501.60m3
Table 3 shows the size of the proposed new joinery and wood recycling single storey
building C. This is a new building not replacing any existing structure or building.
Furthermore, as noted above, officers opined at pre-application stage that this would be
inappropriate development due to the activities not being directly related to horticulture.
The applicant‟s Planning Statement clarifies that building C would provide space for
Shaw Trust clients to “…learn additional skills in woodwork and joinery in addition to the
horticultural skills”4. Noting this clarification it is on balance considered that, as a building
for joinery and wood recycling activities strictly associated with - and ancillary to - the
broader horticultural use of the site, proposed building C is acceptable as an exception
under NPPF paragraph 89 (first bullet point) i.e. as a building for agriculture.
Table 3: Single Storey Joinery & Recycling Building (C)
Existing
Footprint:
n/a
Floorspace (gross):
n/a
Eaves Height:
n/a
Volume:
n/a
Proposed
114m2
114m2
3.2m
364.80m3
For the above reasons the proposed buildings are not considered to constitute
inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However, a condition requiring the
removal of proposed buildings B & C, in the event that their horticultural/agricultural use
changes, is recommended. This is to ensure that the openness of this part of the Green
Belt is restored in such circumstances.
The submitted elevation drawings show the proposed buildings above a flat surface. It is
assumed that this surface represents the existing concrete plinth however, due the
change in levels across the site, it may be that a minor extension of the plinth is required
to accommodate building B to the south and that some minor excavation is required to
accommodate building C to the north. It is therefore considered necessary, to ensure a
satisfactory development in the Green Belt, to control details of the levels of the building
and any change in site levels as a condition of any planning permission.
The pergolas either side of the proposed warehouse building would be non-enclosed
lightweight structures and are considered to be of negligible impact upon the openness
of the Green Belt. However, their subsequent enclosure could amount to inappropriate
development and would link the main warehouse building A to the proposed joinery &
timber recycling building (C), and from the front elevation would also appear to close the
gap between the main warehouse building A and the proposed Jaques Amand Building
(B). This would be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. A condition controlling
4
See paragraph 3.4 of the applicant‟s Planning Statement.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
78
any future works to enclose the proposed pergolas is therefore recommended.
When viewed from the site‟s principal access point (Clamp Hill) the existing warehouse
building has a highly utilitarian appearance which, together with other utilitarian
structures and glasshouses, convey something of the site‟s horticultural/agricultural use.
By contrast the proposed buildings, by unifying the appearance of development on the
site when viewed from Clamp Hill and linked by the proposed pergolas, would convey a
more formal/commercial visual perception. However, a change in appearance is not of
itself indicative of harm. The buildings would be clearly viewed as part of the functioning
of the wider site and would not have an inappropriate (e.g. quasi-domestic) appearance.
As such it is considered that the proposed buildings would not be detrimental to the
visual amenity of the Green Belt.
Policy DM 17 A of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) gives
support for proposals for beneficial use of land in the Green Belt having regard to a
number of factors. The use of the site is as described in the preceding section of this
report and the subject application does not propose a change of use. The proposed
warehouse building A would, however, replace existing ancillary uses as follows with
changes in floor area as set out in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Ancillary Uses within Two Storey Warehouse Building (A)
Existing
Proposed
Change
2
Shop (A1): No dedicated area – part
75m
of main warehouse
Cafe (A3):
56m2
113m2
+57m2 (+101%)
(+ kitchen 7m2)
(incl. servery)
5
2
Offices (B1):
253m
134m2
-119m2 (-47%)
Training (D1): No dedicated area – part
160m2
of main warehouse
Buildings B & C would, as already noted, be for horticultural use consistent with the
primary use of the site as a whole. The above changes point overall to a
formalisation/modest expansion of the commercial and training ancillary floorspaces but
a reduction in ancillary office floorspace within the warehouse building A. Nevertheless
the uses that would be accommodated within building A would not, strictly as ancillary
uses, be detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the Green Belt. Indeed, they
would help to support the continuation of the horticultural use of – and a degree of public
access to - this site within the Green Belt. It is therefore considered that the ancillary
uses proposed within building A are acceptable subject to a condition to ensure that they
remain ancillary uses (i.e. that they do not expand into independent uses that could be
inappropriate within the Green Belt).
In all of the above circumstances it is concluded that the proposal would not amount to
inappropriate development within the Green Belt, nor would it be harmful to the Green
Belt in any other respect.
Sequential Assessment
Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS 1 A requires growth to be managed in accordance with
the spatial strategy. The strategy gives a strong direction for economic activities to locate
5
Incl. staff kitchen areas.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
79
within the Harrow & Wealdstone opportunity area or (of outside of it) within the
Borough‟s district and local centres. Policy DM 2 A(a) of the Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2013) requires non-residential development to be appropriately
located to sustain town centres, neighbourhood parades and local employment
opportunities.
Although the ancillary café would increase in floor area by over 100%, and the scale of
increase in respect of the ancillary shop and training functions cannot be quantified, it is
evident that - in the context of the size/primary use of the whole site – they would
collectively remain relatively modest ancillary activities. Nevertheless, recognising that
the proposal represents some intensification of the use of this Green Belt site, an
alternative site search has been submitted with the application.
The submitted search document finds that the only sites with large vacant areas [that
could accommodate the entirety of the operation currently carried-on at the application
site] are either designated for other uses such as housing or employment, or are
designated open spaces, and so concludes that the application site is the most
sequentially preferable. This is accepted on the basis, as recommended be controlled by
condition (see above), that the ancillary uses remain ancillary uses and do not expand
into independent uses which could be disaggregated and more appropriately located
elsewhere within the Borough.
Ecology and Biodiversity
At paragraph 118 the NPPF sets out the principles for conserving and enhancing
biodiversity, which include resisting development that would: (i) cause significant harm
that cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated-for; or (ii) have an adverse impact on
a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in
and around developments are encouraged.
London Plan Policy 7.19 echoes the need for development proposals to make a positive
contribution to biodiversity, to protect statutory sites, species and habitats, and to help
achieve Biodiversity Action Plan targets. Criteria for the Protection and Enhancement
respectively of are set out in Policies DM 20 and DM 21 of the Development
Management Policies Local Plan document.
The site is in relatively close proximity to (but does not adjoin) two SSSI‟s and does
incorporate part of a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). An Extended
Phase 1 Habitat Survey, prepared by Abricorn and dated 11 th September 2015, has
been submitted with the application. The Council‟s Biodiversity Officer has reviewed the
Survey and has requested that it be revised to improve its rigour with regards to
available data and investigation of the potential for protected species to be present
nearby. These criticisms have been passed on to the applicant‟s agent who has stated
that they will be dealt with and a response provided as soon as possible. Details of any
revised Habitat Survey and the Biodiversity Officer‟s advice as to the adequacy of this
will be reported to the Planning Committee as addendum information.
The submitted Habitat Survey makes specific recommendations as regards protection
measures for bats and nesting birds, and for the implementation of enhancement
features for wildlife (2 x bat boxes and 2 x bird boxes). The Council‟s Biodiversity Officer
has indicated that he is satisfied with these specific measures and it is considered that
they should be secured as a condition of any planning permission. However (for the
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
80
avoidance of doubt) these measures do not negate his others concerns as regards the
robustness of the submitted Survey, further information on which will be reported as
addendum information.
Trees
London Plan Policy 7.21 states that existing trees of value should be retained and that,
wherever appropriate, additional trees should be planted in new development. Policy DM
22 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan document resists the loss of
TPO and other trees of significant amenity value only where it can be demonstrated that
their loss would be outweighed by the wider public benefits of the proposal.
The site is covered by an area Tree Preservation Order and a number of individual trees
are the subject of separate orders. Contrary to officers‟ pre-application advice a detailed
tree survey and method statement have not been submitted with the application.
However the applicant‟s planning statement6 confirms that there would be no tree
removal.
There is one mature tree in relatively close proximity to the north of the proposed new
timber joinery & recycling building C and a number of conifer trees to the south/southeast of proposed building B. The Council‟s Arboricultural Officer has been consulted on
the application proposals and has advised that there should be tree protection during
construction. A condition to this end is recommended.
Landscaping
Paragraph 58 of the NPPF states that planning decisions to ensure that developments
are visually attractive as a result of, inter alia, appropriate landscaping. London Plan
(2015) Policy 7.5 seeks landscape treatment of the highest quality and calls for
opportunities for greening to be maximised. Policy DM 22 of the Development
Management Policies Local Plan (2013) requires landscaping that: is appropriate to the
character of the area; is well laid out; achieves a visual setting for buildings; provides
sufficient space for new planting to grow; and supports biodiversity.
The majority of the application site would be unaffected by the proposed development
and since existing trees on the site are TPO protected then it is to be expected that the
mature, verdant character of the site would be maintained. No details of proposed
remedial/new landscaping within the immediate vicinity of the proposed buildings has
been submitted; however such details can, it is considered, be secured as a condition of
any planning permission.
Design and Layout
Paragraph 56 of the NPPF reiterates the Government‟s commitment to good design.
However, the NPPF is also clear (see paragraphs 60 & 61 in particular) that local
planning authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes,
and emphasises that good design goes beyond solely the consideration of visual
appearance and architecture.
Good design, in its widest sense, is addressed though a number of London Plan (2015)
policies. Policy 7.1 C calls for development that enabled people to live healthy and active
lives, and to maximise the opportunity for community diversity, inclusion and cohesion.
6
See paragraph 6.25 of the applicant‟s Planning Statement.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
81
Part D of the Policy states that the design of new buildings and spaces should reinforce
the character, legibility, permeability and accessibility of the neighbourhood. Policies 7.4
B and 7.6 B set out the criteria for securing high quality design that responds to
surrounding contexts.
Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS 1 B requires development proposals to respond
positively to the local and historic context, and to reinforce positive attributes of local
distinctiveness whilst promoting innovative design and/or enhancing areas of poor
design. Policy DM 1 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) A
requires all development to achieve a high standard of design and layout and B goes on
to set out a number of design and layout considerations to this end. Policy DM 2 A
requires proposals to contribute to the creation of lifetime neighbourhoods.
A Design & Access Statement has not been submitted with the application, however
provides details of the proposed materials. It states that the walls of the proposed
buildings would be timber clad with aluminium framed double-glazed windows.
Corrugated metal shutters would be used to form larger openings (it is assumed for
operational purposes) to the front (east), south and north elevations of building B. The
applicant‟s Planning Statement notes that the use of timber cladding was supported by
the Council‟s Design Officer in pre-application discussions. It is considered that full
details of the external materials can be secured as a condition of any planning
permission.
As noted in the Green Belt section of this report, the design of the proposed buildings
would give them a unified appearance (particularly when viewed from Clamp Hill) than
the existing utilitarian warehouse and other structures that are currently visible.
Architecturally the buildings would, it is considered, also appear more contemporary and
inviting. Overall, in visual terms, it is considered that the proposal is of a reasonably high
standard of design and is an appropriate response to the site‟s character and use.
The nature of the Shaw Trust‟s existing activities on the site is such that it already makes
a valuable contribution to enabling disadvantaged groups residing beyond the site
boundary to lead healthy and active lives, as well as providing opportunities for
community inclusion and cohesion. The proposals would help to enable those activities
to continue. Details of inclusive design and layout within the vicinity of and into the
proposed buildings have not been submitted with the application but can be secured as
a condition of any planning permission.
Residential Amenity
London Plan (2015) Policy 7.6 states that buildings and structures should not cause
unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings in relation to
privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate.
Core Strategy Policy CS1 B requires development to respond positively to the local
context in terms of design, siting, density and spacing. Policy DM 1 C requires all
development to achieve a high standard of privacy and amenity and D sets out a number
of privacy and amenity criteria for the assessment of the impact of development upon
neighbouring occupiers.
Proposed building B would be the closest to the nearest neighbouring residential
property. This would be some 45 metres from the boundary (and some 71 metres from
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
82
the dwelling) of Hillingdon in Clamp Hill. In orientation terms the building would be to the
north/north-west of Hillingdon. Although rising levels means that the building would be
higher than Hillingdon, given the aforementioned separation distances and interposing
trees/vegetation it is not considered that a high standard of privacy and amenity for the
occupiers of that neighbouring property would be maintained.
Buildings A & C would be further away from Hillingdon. Similarly other neighbouring
residential properties in Clamp Hill and Brookshill Avenue would be further away from
the proposed development than Hillingdon. In these circumstances it is not considered
that any of the proposed buildings would be detrimental to the privacy and amenity of
any neighbouring residential occupiers.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the proposal would involve some modest increase in
ancillary uses within building A that could translate to an increase in the intensity of use
on the site. However in the context of the overall site size and existing activities it is not
considered that this would be likely to be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring
residents in terms of potential increased noise and disturbance. Also as noted elsewhere
in this report, it is recommended that a condition be used to control the extent of the
ancillary uses associated with the proposed development and this would also provide a
safeguard against any incremental growth of ancillary uses that could adversely affect
the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
It is not considered that the proposal would prejudice the use of the adjoining scouts‟
premises to the north of the site.
Flood Risk
The application site is within fluvial Flood Zone 1. A very small area to the southern edge
of the site (not affected by the proposed buildings) is within the modelled 1 in 100 year
surface water flood risk zone. No part of the site is within a Critical Drainage Area as
designated in the Local Plan.
The NNPF7 requires a site specific flood risk assessment (FRA) for all proposals of 1
hectare or greater in Flood Zone 1. The application site area is 3.5 hectares. An FRA,
prepared by Clive Onions and dated 13th October 2015, has been submitted with the
application.
Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that, when determining planning applications, local
planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. London Plan
(2015) Policy 5.12 states that development proposals must have regard to measures
proposed in Catchment Flood Management Plans. It is noted that the EA‟s Thames
Catchment Flood Management Plan (2009) focuses on the adaptation of the urban
environment to increase resistance and resilience to flood water, and that this objective
informed the preparation of Harrow‟s Local Plan policies on flood risk management.
Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS1 U undertakes to manage development to achieve an
overall reduction in flood risk and increased resilience to flood events. Policy DM 9 of the
Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) document includes design and
layout criteria for proposals requiring an FRA and these are addressed below.
7
Footnote 20, paragraph 103.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
83
The applicant‟s FRA confirms that the site is at low risk of fluvial flooding and that the
modelled surface water flood risk, although not within the vicinity of the proposed
buildings, would result in depths of less than 300mm and flow velocities of less than 0.25
metres per second and, even then, only in events more extreme than 1 in 100 years).
Although not specifically addressed in the FRA, it is clear that the proposed development
would not result in the loss of flood storage (that would increase flood risk elsewhere),
would (by definition of being within Zone 1) have a dry means of escape, and would be
in excess of 300mm above the 1 in 100 year (plus climate change) flood level. The
applicant‟s FRA states that the proposal would be safe and compliant with the NPPF.
Sustainable Drainage
Both the London Plan8 and Harrow‟s Core Strategy9 seek to achieve greenfield
rainwater run-off rates from new development through the integration and deployment of
sustainable urban drainage systems. The objective is to help restore a more natural
response to rainfall within river catchments, and to address/prevent localised surface
water flooding. It is noted that the site is within a critical drainage area (CDA) as
identified locally as a result of Harrow‟s Surface Water Management Plan (2012).
London Plan (2015) Policy 5.13 sets out a hierarchy of sustainable drainage measures,
with the aim of managing surface water run-off as close to source as possible and Policy
5.14 B deals with waste water. Policy DM 10 of Harrow‟s Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2013) sets out the design and layout criteria for major development
proposals. Both policies also cross-refer to the need for water consumption efficiency.
The applicant‟s FRA outlines the proposed surface water drainage strategy for the site. It
states that the replacement buildings (i.e. A & B) would incorporate rainwater harvesting
facilities to capture water and reduce the mains water consumption, whilst new building
C will drain through rainwater harvesting tanks that would be used for irrigation and
cleaning within the site. Any surplus water would drain into soak-aways. In terms of foul
water, the FRA states that the replacement facilities would have low-water use
appliances that would reduce pressure on the foul sewerage system.
The Council‟s Drainage team has indicated broad satisfaction with the sustainable
drainage proposals with provisos relating to surface water discharge rates and other
relevant details (including a maintenance plan and soak-away design) being secured. It
is considered that such details may be secured as conditions of any planning
permission.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions
The NPPF requires new development to comply with adopted local policies on
decentralised energy supply and to take account of landform, layout, building orientation,
massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption. London Plan (2015) Policy
5.2 applies the following hierarchy for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from
new development: use less energy; supply energy more efficiently; and use renewable
energy. The policy goes on to set out carbon dioxide reduction targets for non-residential
development, and requires detailed energy assessments to be submitted with
applications for major development.
The application has been accompanied by an Energy & Sustainability Statement,
8
Policy 5.13
Paragraph 4.32
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
9
84
prepared by Watt Energy & Consulting Engineers Ltd. and dated 23 rd September 2015.
The submitted Statement states that the proposal would achieve an overall 61.9%
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions however this information has not been presented
as an improvement on the Building Regulations so it is not clear whether this achieves
compliance with the Policy. This matter has been brought to the attention of the
applicant‟s agent and any clarification will be reported to the Planning Committee as
addendum information.
Sustainable Design and Construction
As noted above, the NPPF requires new development to comply with adopted local
policies on decentralised energy supply and to take account of landform, layout, building
orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption. London Plan
(2015) Policy 5.3 requires development proposals to meet the minimum standards
outlined in the Mayor‟s SPG and sets out the principles for sustainable design and
construction. Policy DM 12 of Harrow‟s Development Management Policies (2013) Local
Plan sets out Harrow‟s local requirements.
The submitted Energy Statement appraises a number of technologies and concludes
that a biomass boiler together with high efficiency building fabric and low energy lighting
should be used to reduce the development‟s energy demand and supply energy from
renewable sources. Details (such as location, flue and output/emissions) of the biomass
boiler have not been submitted; however it is considered that such details may be
secured as a condition of any planning permission.
Highway Safety and Parking
Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that decisions should take account of whether:
opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up; safe and suitable
access for all people can be achieved; and whether cost-effective improvements to the
transport network can be undertaken. Policy 6.3 of the adopted London Plan (2015)
requires the impact of development proposals on the transport capacity to be fully
assessed. Policies 6.9 and 6.13 give effect to the Plan‟s maximum car parking and
minimum cycle parking standards. Policy DM 42 of the Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2015) reiterates the need to comply with the London Plan car and
cycle parking standards, seeks motorcycle/scooter parking spaces in all developments
with more than 10 spaces, and requires the design and layout of parking areas
(including those for scooters/motorcycles and bicycles) to be safe, secure and fit for
purpose.
No alteration to the site‟s existing vehicular access (onto Clamp Hill) is proposed and it is
not considered likely that the proposal would materially increase the volume or
characteristics of traffic movements to/from the site. In the absence of any objection in
from the Highway Authority, it is concluded that the continued use of the existing access
in association with the proposed development would not be detrimental to the free flow
and safety of traffic and pedestrians.
The application site has a comparatively low level of public transport accessibility (1a).
The London Plan does not identify a car parking standard specifically for
agricultural/horticultural uses. However there is a standard for retail (maximum 1 space
per 30m2 for non-food retailing in PTAL 1 areas) which, applied to the proposed 75m 2
shop, would generate a maximum of 3 spaces. Applying the London Plan standard for
B1 employment use (maximum 1 space per 100-600m2 in outer London) as a proxy for
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
85
the remaining 1,020m2 proposed floorspace would generate a maximum of between 2
and 11 spaces.
The existing car park fronting the warehouse building is not formally surfaced/markedout but the application form states that there are 45 spaces. This would exceed the
combined maximum standards referred to above. However, it is recognised that the car
park serves the needs of the site as a whole (not just the proposed buildings) and that
the operators of the site have particular requirements in terms of servicing (deliveries &
etc.) and site users. In these circumstances, together with the low level of public
transport accessibility in this location, it is not considered necessary to manage down the
quantum of on-site car parking in connection with the proposed development.
As noted above, Policy DM 42 requires the provision of 1 x motorcycle/scooter parking
spaces per 20 car parking spaces, and both the London Plan and the Local Plan include
requirements to make dedicated car parking provision for „blue badge‟ holders. It is
considered that appropriate provision can be secured as a condition of any planning
permission.
As with car parking, the London Plan does not identify a cycle parking standard
specifically for agricultural/horticultural uses. So applying the relevant standard B1
employment use (again as a proxy) to the proposed floorspace, excluding the ancillary
retail10, the proposal generates a minimum requirement for 7 long stay cycle spaces and
2 short stay cycle spaces. It is considered that the provision of such spaces, including
details to ensure that they are appropriately weather protected and secure, can be
secured as a condition of any planning permission.
Heritage and Area of Special Character
London Plan (2015) Policy 7.8 calls for development affecting heritage assets and their
settings to conserve their significance. Core Strategy Policy CS1 D resists proposals that
would harm the significance of heritage assets including their setting. Policy DM 7 of the
Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) sets out detailed criteria for
assessing the impact of proposals that affect heritage assets.
The proposal was advertised erroneously as affecting the setting of a conservation area.
It is not considered that the proposal, by reason of its comparatively modest scale on
this large site and surrounding mature trees/landscaping, would materially affect any
surrounding conservation area or indeed listed buildings.
Having regard to Policy DM 6 A of the Development Management Policies Local Plan
(2013) and in particular the conclusions elsewhere in this report in relation Green Belt,
tree protection and biodiversity policies, it is not considered that the proposal would be
harmful to the Harrow Weald Ridge Area of Special Character.
Waste and Recycling
London Plan (2015) Policy 5.13 requires development to minimise the generation of
waste and maximise reuse or recycling. These sentiments are echoed in Core Strategy
(2012) Policy CS1 X. Policy DM45 of Harrow‟s Development Management Policies Local
Plan (2013) requires proposals to make satisfactory provision for general waste, the
separation of recyclable materials and the collection of organic material for composting.
10
2
The London Plan minimum cycle parking standard for retail is set above a threshold of 100m .
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
86
Details of the arrangements for storing (for collection/disposal) of waste and recycling
materials on the site have not been submitted; however it is considered that such details
may be secured as a condition of any planning permission.
No details of the measures for handling waste during the demolition and construction
phases of the development have been submitted. However, it is considered that a site
waste management plan can be secured as a condition of any planning permission.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Equalities Impact
Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 created the public sector equality duty.
Section149 states:(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need
to:
(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is
prohibited by or under this Act;
(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic and persons who do not share it;
(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic
and persons who do not share it.
Officers have taken this into account in the assessment of this application and the
Committee must be mindful of this duty inter alia when determining all planning
applications.
The proposal would help to support the continued work of the Shaw Trust charity on this
site. Conditions are recommended that would ensure inclusive access and car parking
for „blue badge‟ holders. In these circumstances it is considered that the proposed
development would not result in any infringement on Equalities legislation.
Human Rights Act
In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it
unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the
Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware
of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (“the
Convention”) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales.
The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a
fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First
Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
This report has outlined the consultation that has been undertaken in relation to this
planning application and the opportunities for people to make representations to the
Council as the local planning authority. Members need to satisfy themselves that the
measures proposed to minimise, inter alia, any adverse effects of the development are
acceptable and that any potential interference with Article 8 rights will be legitimate and
justified.
Both public and private interests are to be taken into account in the exercise of the
Council's planning authority's powers and duties. Any interference with a Convention
right must be necessary and proportionate. Members must, therefore, carefully consider
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
87
the balance to be struck between individual rights and the wider public interest.
As set out above, it is necessary, having regard to the Human Rights Act 1998, to take
into account any interference with private property rights protected by the European
Convention on Human Rights and ensure that the interference is proportionate and in
the public interest.
In this context, the balance to be struck between individual rights and the wider public
interest has been carefully considered. Officers consider that any interference with
Convention rights is justified. Officers have also taken into account the mitigation
measures governed by planning conditions and the associated section 106 Planning
Obligation to be entered into.
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
The redevelopment of the existing warehouse building and the other buildings proposed
provide the opportunity to design-in modern standards of security. No change is
proposed in respect of security to the rest of the site. It is concluded that the proposal
would therefore not increase the risk or fear of crime.
Consultation Responses
No objections to the proposed development have been received.
CONCLUSION
Although the proposal involves development within the Green Belt, proposed building A
would not be materially larger than the existing warehouse building on the site, which it
would replace, and new buildings B & C are proposed for horticultural/agricultural use.
Consistent with the NPPF the proposed buildings are, in these circumstances and
subject to conditions, considered to be acceptable. In all other respects, subject to
conditions and resolution of the proposal‟s performance in relation to London Plan
(2015) Policy 5.2 (carbon dioxide emissions improvement upon the Building
Regulations), the development is considered to be acceptable.
CONDITIONS:
General Conditions
1 The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this planning permission.
REASON : To comply with the provisions of section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, the development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings.
REASON : To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the details
submitted in the planning application.
3 The buildings marked B and C on the approved drawing numbered RK/PREAPP/892/02 Rev. C shall be demolished/dismantled, and the resulting material shall be
removed from the site, in the event that the buildings B and C cease to be used in
connection with the use of the site (either in whole or in part) for horticultural/agricultural
use, other than any use(s) that are ancillary to the horticultural/agricultural use of the
site.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
88
REASON : To safeguard against inappropriate development on the site, in the interests
of the openness and integrity of the Green Belt, and to ensure compliance with the
Green Belt provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy 7.16 B
of the London Plan (2015) and Policy DM 16 D of the Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2013).
4 The pergolas hereby approved shall not be enclosed by any addition to the sides or
the provision of any roof structure(s) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local
planning authority.
REASON : To safeguard against inappropriate development on the site, in the interests
of the openness and integrity of the Green Belt, and to ensure compliance with the
Green Belt provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy 7.16 B
of the London Plan (2015) and Policy DM 16 D of the Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2013).
5 Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development (England) Order 2015, or any Order amending or replacing (with or without
modification) that Order, the buildings hereby approved shall not be used at any time
other than in connection with the horticultural/agricultural use of the site and the ancillary
uses as denoted on the approved drawings numbered RK/PRE-APP/892/02 Rev. C and
RK/PRE-APP/892/02 Rev. C and detailed in the application form, unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
REASON : To safeguard against inappropriate development on the site, in the interests
of the openness and integrity of the Green Belt, and to ensure compliance with the
Green Belt provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy 7.16 B
of the London Plan (2015) and Policy DM 16 D of the Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2013); and to allow consideration of any non-ancillary/independent
uses in the context of Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS 1 A and Policy DM 2 A(a) of the
Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013); and to ensure a high standard of
amenity for neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy DM 1 C & D of the
Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
6 Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development (England) Order 2015, or any Order amending or replacing (with or without
modification) that Order, the buildings hereby approved shall not be extended or any
other manner enlarged without the prior permission, in writing, of the local planning
authority.
REASON : To safeguard against inappropriate development on the site, in the interests
of the openness and integrity of the Green Belt, and to ensure compliance with the
Green Belt provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy 7.16 B
of the London Plan (2015) and Policy DM 16 D of the Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2013).
Pre-Commencement Conditions
7 The development hereby approved shall not commence until details of the levels of
the parts of the site and the buildings the subject of this planning permission have been
submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed.
REASON : In the interests of the openness and integrity of the Green Belt, and to ensure
compliance with the Green Belt provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework
(2012), Policy 7.16 B of the London Plan (2015) and Policy DM 16 D of the Development
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
89
Management Policies Local Plan (2013). To ensure that the levels are agreed prior to
the erection of the approved buildings, this condition is a PRE-COMMENCEMENT
condition.
8 The development hereby approved shall not commence until details of works for the
disposal of foul water from the approved buildings have been submitted to, and agreed
in writing by, the local planning authority. The works for the disposal of foul water from
the approved buildings shall be carried out and installed in accordance with the details
so REASON : To ensure that adequate measures for the control and disposal of foul
water from the buildings are provided, in accordance with Policy 5.14 of the London Plan
(2015) and Policy DM 10 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
To ensure that the works are agreed prior to the erection of the approved buildings, this
condition is a PRE-COMMENCEMENT condition.
9 The development hereby approved shall not commence until details of works for the
attenuation, storage and disposal of surface water from the approved buildings have
been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The details
shall include: the surface water discharge rate; the drainage layout including the outlet
and cross section of proposed storage; the specification of any flow restriction devices to
be used; and full design of any soak-aways together with the results of ground
permeability testing. The works for the disposal of surface water from the approved
buildings shall be carried out and installed in accordance with the details so agreed and
shall thereafter be retained.
REASON : To ensure that adequate measures for the sustainable control and disposal
of surface water from the buildings are provided on the site, in accordance with Policy
5.13 of the London Plan (2015) and Policy DM 10 of the Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2013). To ensure that the works are agreed prior to the erection of
the approved buildings, this condition is a PRE-COMMENCEMENT condition.
10 The development hereby approved shall not be commence until details of the means
of protection during construction of the trees on the site have been submitted to, and
agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The details shall include:
a) identification of root protection areas;
b) the method of any excavation proposed within the root protection areas;
c) the type, height and location of protective fencing; and
d) measures for the prevention of soil compaction within the root protection areas.
The construction of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details
so agreed or any amendment or variation to them as may be agreed in writing by the
local planning authority.
REASON : To ensure that the retention and survival of trees, hedgerows and other
planting of significant amenity value within the site that are to be retained, and trees
within adjoining sites, are safeguarded during construction, in accordance with Policy
DM 22 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). To ensure that the
means of protection are agreed prior to the erection of the approved buildings, this
condition is a PRE-COMMENCEMENT condition.
11 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a
demolition and construction waste management plan, setting out arrangements for the
handling of excavation, demolition and construction waste arising from the development,
and to make provision for the recovery and re-use of salvaged materials wherever
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
90
possible, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed plan or any
amendment or variation to it as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
REASON : To ensure that waste management on the site is addressed from
construction stage and to promote waste as a resource, in accordance with London Plan
(2015) Policy 5.13 and Policy CS1 X of the Core Strategy (2012). To ensure that
measures are agreed and in place to manage and re-use waste arising during the
demolition and construction phases of the development, this condition is a PRECOMMENCEMENT condition.
Progression Point Conditions
12 Before the construction of any approved building on the site reaches damp proof
course level, a maintenance plan for the on-going maintenance of the works for the
disposal of surface water from the approved buildings shall be submitted to, and agreed
in writing by, the local planning authority. The maintenance plan, or any amendment or
variation to the plan as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall
thereafter be implemented for the lifetime of the development.
REASON : To ensure that adequate measures for the control and disposal of surface
water from the development are maintained on the site, in accordance with Policy 5.13
of the London Plan (2015) and Policies DM 10 of the Development Management Policies
Local Plan (2013).
13 Before the construction of any approved building on the site reaches damp proof
course level, details for the provision of a minimum 7 long-stay and 2 short stay bicycle
parking spaces shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning
authority. The details shall include: the location of the spaces and the arrangements for
securing and weather-protecting the spaces. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the details so agreed and the bicycle parking spaces shall thereafter be
retained.
REASON : To ensure that the development makes adequate provision for bicycle
parking in accordance with Policies 6.9 and 6.13 of the London Plan (2015) and Policy
DM 42 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
14 Before the construction of any approved building on the site reaches damp proof
course level, details of the materials to be used in the external surfaces of the buildings
have been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed or any
amendment or variation to them as may be agreed in writing by the local planning
authority.
REASON : To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of design in
accordance with Policy DM 1 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan
(2013).
15 Before the construction of any approved building on the site reaches damp proof
course level, the following specifications shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by,
the local planning authority:
a)
the detailed design of all ramps, steps and pathways within the external areas of
the development;
b)
the thresholds, door opening widths and landing areas at all entrances between
the external areas of the development and the approved buildings; and
c)
the levels and layout of pedestrian route(s) between the parking areas within the
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
91
site and the entrances of the approved buildings.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the specifications so agreed, or
any amendment or variation to them as may be agreed in writing by the local planning
authority, and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter.
REASON : To ensure that the development contributes to the creation of an inclusive
environment, in accordance with Policy 7.1 of the London Plan (2015) and Policies DM1
& DM 2 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
Pre-Use Conditions
16 The buildings hereby approved shall not be first used until a minimum of 2 x bat
boxes and 2 x bird boxes have been installed on the site in accordance with the
recommendations of submitted Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, prepared by Abricorn
and dated 11th September 2015. The bat and bird boxes shall thereafter be retained.
REASON : To ensure that the development appropriately protects and enhances the
biodiversity value of the site in accordance with Policy 7.19 of the London Plan (2015)
and Policies DM 20 and DM 21 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan
(2013).
17 The buildings hereby approved shall not be first used until a minimum of 2 car
parking spaces for blue badge holders and a minimum of 3 motorcycle/scooter parking
spaces have been marked out on the site in accordance with details that shall first have
been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The spaces
shall thereafter be retained.
REASON : To ensure that the development makes adequate provision for car parking for
disabled persons in accordance with Policy 6.13 and paragraph 6A.2 of the London Plan
(2015) and Policy DM 42 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
18 The buildings hereby approved shall not be first used until a bin enclosure for the
storage of waste and recycling materials arising from the use of the buildings has been
installed on the site in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to,
and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The bin enclosure shall thereafter
be retained.
REASON : To ensure that the development makes adequate provision for bin storage in
accordance with Policy DM 42 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan
(2013); and to safeguard the visual amenity of the Green Belt in accordance with the
Green Belt provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
19 The buildings hereby approved shall not be first used until a scheme of hard and soft
landscaping for the areas immediately surrounding the approved buildings has been
submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The hard and soft
landscaping scheme so agreed shall be implemented within the first planting season
following the occupation of the buildings hereby approved.
REASON : To ensure that the development secures satisfactory hard and soft
landscaping details for all parts of the site, in accordance with Policies DM 1 and DM 22
of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
INFORMATIVES:
1 INFORMATIVE:
Statement under Article 35(2) of The Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. This decision has been reached in
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
92
accordance with paragraphs 187-189 of The National Planning Policy Framework. Preapplication advice was sought and provided and the submitted application was in
accordance with that advice.
2 INFORMATIVE:
IMPORTANT: Compliance With Planning Conditions Requiring Submission and
Approval of Details Before Development Commences
 You will be in breach of planning permission if you start development without
complying with a condition requiring you to do something before you start. For
example, that a scheme or details of the development must first be approved by the
Local Planning Authority.
 Carrying out works in breach of such a condition will not satisfy the requirement to
commence the development within the time permitted.
 Beginning development in breach of a planning condition will invalidate your planning
permission.
 If you require confirmation as to whether the works you have carried out are
acceptable, then you should apply to the Local Planning Authority for a certificate of
lawfulness.
The applicant is advised to ensure that the highway is not interfered with or obstructed at
any time during the execution of any works on land adjacent to a highway. The applicant
is liable for any damage caused to any footway, footpath, grass verge, vehicle crossing,
carriageway or highway asset. Please report any damage to nrswa@harrow.gov.uk or
telephone 020 8424 1884 where assistance with the repair of the damage is available, at
the applicants expense. Failure to report any damage could result in a charge being
levied against the property.
3 INFORMATIVE:
The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements in the attached Considerate
Contractor Code of Practice, in the interests of minimising any adverse effects arising
from building operations, and in particular the limitations on hours of working.
4 INFORMATIVE:
In June 2006 Harrow Council adopted two Supplementary Planning Documents: “Access
for All" and “Accessible Homes”, containing design guidelines for the provision of safe
and convenient access for all disabled groups. Both documents can be viewed on the
Planning pages of Harrow Council‟s website.
5 INFORMATIVE:
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify and obtain formal
agreement from adjoining owner(s) where the building owner intends to carry out
building work which involves:
1.
work on an existing wall shared with another property;
2.
building on the boundary with a neighbouring property;
3.
excavating near a neighbouring building,
and that work falls within the scope of the Act. Procedures under this Act are quite
separate from the need for planning permission or building regulations approval. “The
Party Wall etc. Act 1996: Explanatory booklet” is available free of charge from:
Communities and Local Government Publications, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB.
Please quote Product code: 02 BR 00862 when ordering. Also available for download
from
the
CLG
website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/133214.pdf
Tel:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
93
0870 1226 236, Fax: 0870 1226 237, Textphone: 0870 1207 405, E-mail:
communities@twoten.com
6 INFORMATIVE:
The London Borough of Harrow seeks to encourage Secured by Design accreditation
where appropriate. This is a national police initiative that is supported by the Home
Office Crime Reduction & Community Safety Unit and the Planning Section of the
DCLG. It is designed to encourage the building industry to adopt crime prevention
measures to assist in reducing the opportunity for crime and the fear of crime, creating
safer, more secure and sustainable environments. It is recommended that the applicant
apply for this award. For additional information, please contact the Borough Crime
Prevention Design Advisor through the Crime Reduction Unit, Harrow Police Station, 74
Northolt Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA2 ODN, tel. 020 8733 3465.
7 INFORMATIVE:
SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION:
The decision to grant permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the London Plan and-or the Harrow Local Plan set out below, and to all
relevant material considerations including any comments received in response to
publicity and consultation, as outlined in the application report:
London Plan: 5.2; 5.3; 5.12; 5.13; 5.14; 6.9; 6.13; 7.1; 7.4; 7.5; 7.6; 7.8; 7.16; 7.19; and
7.21.
Core Strategy: CS1 A; CS1 B; CS 1 D; CS 1 F; CS1 U; and CS1 X.
Development Management Policies: DM 1; DM 2; DM 6; DM 7; DM 9; DM 10; DM 12;
DM 16; DM 17; DM 20; DM 21; DM 22; DM 42; and DM 45.
8 INFORMATIVE:
Please be advised that approval of this application (either by Harrow Council, or
subsequently by PINS if allowed on Appeal following a Refusal by Harrow Council) will
attract a liability payment of £13,370.00 of Community Infrastructure Levy. This charge
has been levied under Greater London Authority CIL charging schedule and s211 of the
Planning Act 2008.
Harrow Council as CIL collecting authority on commencement of development will be
collecting the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
Your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £13,370.00 for the
application, based on the levy rate for Harrow of £35/sqm and the net increase in
floorspace of 382 sqm
You are advised to visit the planning portal website where you can download the
appropriate document templates.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil
Plan Nos: RK/PRE-APP/892/01 (Location Plan); RK/PRE-APP/892/01i (Existing Plans
and Elevation); RK/PRE-APP/892/01ii (Existing Plans and Elevation); RK/PREAPP/892/02 Rev. C (Proposed Ground Floor Plan); RK/PRE-APP/892/03 Rev. C
(Proposed First Floor Plan); RK/PRE-APP/892/04 Rev. B (Proposed Site Elevation);
RK/PRE-APP/892/05 Rev. B (Proposed Front Elevation); RK/PRE-APP/892/06 Rev. B
(Proposed Rear Elevation); RK/PRE-APP/892/07 Rev. C (Proposed South Elevations);
RK/PRE-APP/892/08 Rev. C (Proposed North Elevations)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
94
THE NURSERIES, CLAMP HILL, STANMORE
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
95
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
96
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
97
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
98
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
99
ITEM NO:
1/04
ADDRESS:
CEDARS MANOR SCHOOL, WHITTLESEA ROAD, HARROW
REFERENCE:
P/0170/16
DESCRIPTION:
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING AND REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE A SINGLE AND THREE STOREY
BUILDING; CAR PARKING; HARD AND SOFT PLAY AREAS;
LANDSCAPING; INTERNAL/EXTERNAL FENCING TO INCREASE
SCHOOL FROM 544 PUPILS TO 630 PUPILS (INCLUDING 6
HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS) PLUS 26 PLACE NURSERY
WITH RETENTION OF CEDARS CHILDREN‟S CENTRE
WARD:
HARROW WEALD
APPLICANT:
EDUCATION FUNDING AGENCY (EFA)
AGENT:
HKS ARCHITECTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF KIER CONSTRUCT
CASE OFFICER:
CONOR GUILFOYLE
EXPIRY DATE:
14/04/2016
RECOMMENDATION
Under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992,
subject to;
details of protected species mitigation and how the associated derogation tests would be
met being submitted to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to the
application being considered by the planning committee, and;
no objections being received to the re-consultation on the increased car park area over
the originally submitted details;
GRANT planning permission for the development described in the application and
submitted plans subject to conditions:
Regulation 3 applications are applications for planning permission by an interested
planning authority to develop any land of that authority. In this instance, the applicant is
the London Borough of Harrow and the land at Cedars Manor School, Whittlesea Road,
Harrow, HA3 6LS
INFORMATION
The application is reported to the Planning Committee because the Council is the
Landowner and the proposal is a major development and therefore falls outside of
category 1(d) of the Council‟s scheme of delegation.
Legal Comments
Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 [Statutory
Instrument 1992/1492] provides that applications for planning permission by an
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
100
interested planning authority to develop any land of that authority shall be determined by
the authority concerned, unless the application is called in by the Secretary of State
under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for determination by him.
The application is made by LB Harrow who intends to carry out the development on the
land at Cedars Manor School, Whittlesea Road, Harrow, HA3 6LS.
The grant of planning permission for this development falling within Regulation 3 shall
ensure only for the benefit of LB Harrow.
Statutory Return Type: Major Development
Council Interest: None
Gross Floorspace: 3296 sqm
Net reduction in Floorspace: 4397 sqm
GLA Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Contribution: The Mayor of London Charging
Schedule (February 2012) outlines that CIL will not be payable where “Development is
used wholly or mainly for the provision of education as a school or college under the
Education Acts or as an institution of higher education”.
The Harrow School Expansion Programme
Harrow Council has a statutory responsibility to provide sufficient school places for its
area. Like most London Boroughs, Harrow is experiencing a significant increase in
demand for school places. The increasing demand is primarily birth rate driven but is
complicated by other factors such as migration, household occupancy, size of families,
etc. The main pressure on school places is currently in the primary sector, though
pressure is also being experienced in the special educational needs sector and will be
experienced in the secondary sector when the additional pupil numbers progress
through to the high schools.
Harrow Cabinet agreed its school place planning strategy in February 2010 to meet the
increasing demand for school places. Harrow is a congested urban borough and there is
very limited effective scope to build new schools. In July 2015, Cabinet agreed on a
Primary School Expansion Programme as part of the School Place Planning Strategy.
The strategy aims to secure sufficient primary school places through the creation of
additional permanent places, supplemented by the opening of temporary additional
classes as required to meet the peak and variations in demand.
Harrow has been opening additional temporary reception classes since 2009, with an
increasing trend in the number of places opened. Phase 1 of the primary school
expansion programme was implemented in September 2013 with 8 schools in the
borough permanently increasing their reception intakes and 9 temporary additional
reception classes were also opened. Statutory proposals for phase 2 of the Primary
School Expansion has been completed with 19 school obtaining planning permission to
expand.
The re-development of the site is now being considered as part of the Government‟s
Priority Schools Building Programme (PSBP). The PSBP was launched in July 2011 and
is procured by the Education Funding Agency on behalf of the Department for
Education. The PSBP aims to raise standards in education, through a combination of
investment in buildings and ICT, so that young people can fulfil their potential and so that
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
101
staff can use their skills to best effect.
Cedars Manor School is an existing three form of entry (FE) primary school catering for
544 pupils. The proposal is to provide a new 3 FE school building on the existing site for
pupils aged 4-11 with a capacity of 630 pupils including 6 special educational needs
(SEN) / hearing impaired (HI) pupils. The proposal also includes a nursery with provision
for 26 spaces, resulting in a total capacity in the new school for 656 pupils.
Site Description
 The application site is an irregular shaped parcel of land which fronts and bounds
Whittlesea Road to the north. Its north-west, west, south, south-east, east, and northeastern boundaries are formed by the rear gardens of properties on Whittlesea Road
(NW and NW to south), Boxtree Lane (SE) and Stafford Road (east).
 At the north, the main vehicular pedestrian access is gained off Whittlesea road on
the north-west corner of the site. This leads to a car parking area with 46 formally
marked out parking bays (corrected from 62 as originally stated in the planning
application and supporting documentation), none of which are dedicated for use by
disabled drivers. No on-site cycle parking provision current exists.
 An existing children‟s centre lies adjacent to the access, sited centrally along the
north frontage of the site, fronting Whittlesea Road.
 The existing Cedars Manor School adjoins the east side of the children‟s centre
along its frontage on Whittlesea Road. Its single storey scale expands rearwards
(north-south) along a main staggered linear „spine‟ off which easterly projections
expand across the northern „half‟ of the site, and westerly projections expand across
the southern „half‟ of the site. Due to its sprawling layout, the existing school buildings
cover most of the site.
 Playground (centre-west, south-east) and playing field (east) surrounds most of the
remaining site area.
 To the east, there is a gated access off Stafford Road to the playing fields
 At the south, a passage runs between houses to the site which provides the main
pedestrian access to the site, off Whittlesea Road.
Proposal Details
 The application proposes to demolition of\ the existing two form of entry (FE) primary
school and build a replacement 3 FE primary school for pupils aged 4-11 with a
capacity of 630 pupils including 6 special educational needs (SEN) / hearing impaired
(HI) pupils. The proposal also includes a nursery with provision for 26 spaces,
resulting in a total capacity in the new school for 656 pupils.
 The replacement school would feature a building with a more coherent singular „Lshaped‟ main footprint (in contrast to the sprawling layout of the existing buildings),
sited behind the existing children‟s centre, in the north-western part of the central
element of the site.
 The replacement building would be three storeys in scale across almost the entirety
of the north-south linear block towards the centre of the site which would comprise its
largest element; a north-south linear block towards the centre of the site. Off the
north-west of that block, the building would project westwards, where the scale of its
northern side would be storey, and its southern side single-and-a-half (school halls)
 The building would feature a contemporary external appearance, with two contrasting
brown/beige/cream „clay‟ brick finishes. It would feature recessed elements to add
texture and visual interest. Individual lettered signage affixed to the building above
the front entrance would add further visual interest when viewed from the main front
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
102




entrance/Whittlesea Road to the north. The combined effect of the design approach
seeks to break down the bulk and mass of the building.
Car parking would be provided in the same north/north-west area of the site, behind
the rear gardens of properties on Whittlesea Road to the west as existing. The
submitted planning application originally proposed 36 car park spaces (including 2
disabled spaces). However, since the time of submission, following discussions with
officers, the proposed car parking area has been expanded in depth (southerly) in
order to accommodate provision for 48 car parking spaces. Revised consultation on
this increased parking provision/car park coverage was carried out on 7 th March,
which ends on 21st March.
The above committee resolution is based on the proviso that no objections to the
proposed increase in car parking provision and surface area are received by the end
of the consultation period, with any formal issue of planning permission (decision
notice) to take place after this period.
The proposal also seeks to provide cycle spaces. 50 are proposed, although more
are required by relevant planning policy, which could be secured by planning
condition.
The proposal also includes a landscaping scheme, details of which would form the
basis of any approval, should planning permission be granted.
Revisions to Previous Application
 N/A
Relevant History
P/2653/08 - Erection of canopy at school entrance – Granted 17/11/2008
P/0698/07 - Proposed children‟s centre and nursery – Granted 07/06/2007
Pre-Application Discussion (Ref.)
 The revised scheme for the site was considered in consultation with the Education
Funding Agency as part of the Priority Schools Building Programme ITT (Invitation to
Tender) Process and further pre application meetings to discuss the developing
design and application requirements. A public consultation meeting also took place at
the school on 15th December 2015, with a broadly positive response received to the
proposal.
Applicant Submission Documents
 Design and Access Statement
 Planning Statement
 Statement of Community Involvement
 Statement of Community Use
 School Travel Plan
 Surface Water Drainage Design Philosophy
 Drainage Layout and Schedule
 Landscaping Details
 Construction Method Statement
 Part L Compliance Report
 Pre-Development Arboricultural Survey
 Preliminary Ecological Assessment
 Daytime Bat Survey
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
103










Nocturnal and Dawn Bat Surveys
Nocturnal Emergence and Dawn Re-Entry Bat Surveys
Bat Survey and Licence Application
Phase I Geo-Environmental Assessment Report
Phase II Ground Investigation Report,
Topographical Survey
Part L Compliance Report
Noise Emission Assessment
Transport Assessment
Flood Risk Assessment
Consultations
Environmental Health – No objection subject to an air quality (AQ) assessment and an
AQ neutral assessment, including an assessment of dust and other airborne risks from
construction.
If the AQ neutral requirement is not met, no objection is raised subject to further
mitigation being secured by planning condition, with the impacts on the AQ neutral
assessment calculated so their efficacy can be quantified.
Highways – No objection subject to;
 62 parking spaces*; serious concerns with 34 spaces as [initially] proposed
*Since this comment, the applicant has confirmed that 46 formally marked out car
parking spaces, and not 62 as originally stated in the planning application and
supporting documentation, is achievable at the existing school. Highways officers
have indicated that they are satisfied with the revised (48 car parking spaces)
proposed, on the basis that they do not lead to a shortfall over existing car
parking provision.

1 disabled parking space should be provided within the school car park if possible.

Cycle parking must be provided in accordance with London Plan 2015 standards
which amount to 94 long stay spaces and 6 short stay spaces. This is based on a
total number of 656 pupils and 98 staff - Locations and type of storage need to be
identified.

The submitted construction method statement is acceptable, however it is essential
that early engagement is made with the Council‟s Highway Network Management
regarding construction traffic. It would appear that temporary traffic restrictions are
required and these need to be agreed and factored into the development
timescale. (contact HNM via nrswa@harrow.gov.uk or telephone 020 8424 1799).
Biodiversity Officer - Objection - The bat surveys attached to this application show that
bats are roosting on site. As set out in relevant legislation, the Local Planning Authority
needs to be satisfied that all three „derogation tests‟ are applied where necessary, and
relevant information is obtained from the applicant, before granting planning permission.
This legal duty cannot be discharged by adding a planning condition.
Therefore the applicant needs to provide us with details of mitigation and how the three
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
104
tests will be met before planning permissions is approved.
Sport England – No objection
Landscape Architect – No objection subject to the following hard and soft landscape
conditions
 Landscaping to be Approved - also including all the play areas and planting plans (at
a scale not less than 1:100), written specification of planting and cultivation works to
be undertaken and schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed
numbers / densities and an implementation programme
 Hard landscape Material Details
 Landscaping Scheme - Implementation including a period of 5 year period for
replacements of soft landscape
 Boundary Treatment and proposed fencing
 Hard landscape Material Details
 Levels - existing and proposed levels, clearly identifying changes to landform
 Management and maintenance objectives and programme for all the school grounds
/ landscape areas
 Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan.
 Tree Protection Condition
Waste Management – No objection









Drainage Engineer – Landscaping to be Approved - also including all the play areas
and planting plans (at a scale not less than 1:100), written specification of planting
and cultivation works to be undertaken and schedules of plants, noting species, plant
sizes and proposed numbers / densities and an implementation programme
Hard landscape Material Details
Landscaping Scheme - Implementation including a period of 5 year period for
replacements of soft landscape
Boundary Treatment and proposed fencing
Hard landscape Material Details
Levels - existing and proposed levels, clearly identifying changes to landform
Management and maintenance objectives and programme for all the school grounds
/ landscape areas
Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan.
Tree Protection Condition
Transport for London – No objection subject to issues relating to cycle use/parking,
delivery and servicing/construction logistics, and adherence to a school travel plan,
being addressed satisfactorily
Designing Out Crime Officers – No comment
Environment Agency – No objection
Thames Water Utilities – No comment
Affinity Water – No comment
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
105
Advertisement
Press advert: 28/01/16: Major Development - Expiry: 18/02/16
Site Notice: 05/02/16: Major Development - Expiry: 26/02/16
Notifications
Sent: 100
Replies: 2
Expiry: 17-02-16
Addresses Consulted
100 properties on Boxtree Lane, Stafford Road, Whittlesea Road and Chicheley Road
Summary of Responses
 2 letters of objection which can be summarised as follows;
 query if concerns of residents of Whittlesea Road and surrounding roads are being
taken into account; parking is already a great problem, not only in school hours,
compounded by the children‟s centre, other school activities, teachers parking on the
road; this impacts elderly residents who may not be registered disabled but face
mobility issues; query if (resident) parking permits have been considered
 volume of traffic causes chaos at school times, with resultant capacity and safety
concerns
 residents can‟t find parking spaces on the street due to parents, visitors and school
staff parking on the street.
 Whittlesea Road should be made on-way and resident‟s parking permits introduced
APPRAISAL
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:
„If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to
be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with
the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
The Government has issued the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] which
consolidates national planning policy and is a material consideration in the determination
of this application.
In this instance, the Development Plan comprises The London Plan (consolidated with
alterations since 2011)(2015) [LP] and the Local Development Framework [LDF]. The
LDF comprises The Harrow Core Strategy 2012 [CS], Harrow and Wealdstone Area
Action Plan 2013 [AAP], the Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013 [DMP],
the Site Allocations Local Plan [SALP] 2013 and Harrow Local Area Map 2013 [LAP].
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of the Development
Character and Appearance of the Area
Residential Amenity
Traffic and Parking
Development and Flood Risk
Accessibility
Sustainability
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
106
Biodiversity, Trees and Wildlife
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
Consultation Responses
Principle of the Development
The National Planning Policy Framework outlines that the purpose of the planning
system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It emphasises
that paragraphs 18 to 219 of the NPPF should be taken as a whole in defining what
amounts to sustainable development. Economic, social and environmental
considerations form the three dimensions of sustainable development. With regard to the
social role of the planning system, this is in supporting strong, vibrant and healthy
communities by creating a high quality build environment that reflect the community
needs and support its health, social and cultural wellbeing. In order to achieve
sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought
jointly.
The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) outlines at paragraph 72 that: “The
Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school
places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning
authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this
requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. Local Planning
authorities should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools”.
Furthermore, on the 15/08/11 the DCLG published a policy statement on planning for
schools development which is designed to facilitate the delivery and expansion of state
funded schools. It states:
“The Government if firmly committed to ensuring there is sufficient provision to meet
growing demand for state funded school places, increasing choice and opportunity in
state funded education and raising educational standards…..The Government wants to
enable goods schools to opens and new schools to expand and all schools to adapt and
improve their facilities. This will allow for more provision and greater diversity in the state
funded school sector to meet both demographic needs and the drive for increased
choice and higher standards”.
“It is the Government‟s view that the creation and development of state funded schools
is strongly in the national interest and that planning decision makers can and should
support that objective, in a manner consistent with their statutory obligations”
Core policy CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) states that: “The development or
expansion of physical or social infrastructure will be permitted where it is needed to
serve existing and proposed development, or required to meet projected future
requirements.” Policies 3.16 and 3.18 of The London Plan (2015) seek to ensure, inter
alia, that development proposals which enhance social infrastructure, education and
skills provision are supported.
Policy DM 46 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan supports
proposals for the provision of new education facilities provided that they are; (a) located
in the community which they are intended to serve; (b) subject to them being located in
an area of good public transport accessibility and would not result in any adverse
impacts on residential amenity or highway safety.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
107
Cedars Manor School is part of the Government‟s Priority Schools Building Programme
(PSBP). The PSBP was launched in July 2011 and is procured by the Education
Funding Agency on behalf of the Department for Education aiming to raise the standards
of teaching spaces within education. The educational use of this site is long established.
The existing buildings on the site are time served, with the Council and the EFA
identifying them as being in poor condition and subject to high-cost repairs. The existing
buildings are poorly configured and form an incoherent sprawl on the site. The proposed
school would feature a good quality, sustainable design, with a considerable reduction in
land-take, resulting in an improvement in education facilities for local people and an
increase in the amount of open land on the school site. It would feature a building which
is fit for its purpose and rational in its layout, use and form, with the resulting benefits to
managing the accommodation in terms of efficiencies of scale/energy use, and
classroom layouts.
Furthermore, as outlined above, Harrow needs to create more primary school places to
meet a growing demand. Having regard to the very limited availability of land for new
schools within the borough against the backdrop of existing and projected demand for
places, it is considered that there is a clear need for additional educational space and,
as such, the proposals have strong policy support at local, regional and national level.
Furthermore, the site is located within a reasonably accessible, established location, with
an established pupil catchment, to help meet the demand for places within the
surrounding community.
A parcel of land currently occupied by the playing fields in the east/north-east of the site
is identified within the Local Plan as an area of Open Space. Policy 7.18B of the London
Plan (2015) and Policies DMP 18 and 19 of the Harrow Development Management
Policies Local Plan are relevant in this respect. The proposed replacement school
building would not encroach over any of this designated open space (the majority of
other existing open space is not designated as such in the Local Plan). The use of this
open space would continue to be for playing fields under the proposed development,
and/or partially used as part of the wider proposed „soft social‟ area (i.e. as open green
space). Therefore there is no conflict with the above policies which seek to retain, or
secure sufficient replacement, open space as designated in the Local Plan.
In summary, having regard to the above policy considerations, the principle of
development is considered to be acceptable by officers. It is considered that the
proposal would make a significant contribution to social and educational infrastructure
within the London Borough of Harrow. The proposed development will result in a
significant improvement in terms of the quality of the physical facilities on the site and
the removal of poor quality accommodation which is past its life-cycle.
Character and Appearance of the Area
The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises that in the pursuit of sustainable
development, proposals which would replace poor design with better design and would
provide positive improvements in the quality of the built environment should be
encouraged (Paragraph 9). The NPPF makes it very clear that good design is a key
aspect of sustainable development and is indivisible from good planning and should
contribute positively to making better places for people.
The London Plan (2015) policies 7.4B and 7.6B set out the design principles that all
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
108
boroughs should seek to ensure for all development proposals. The London Plan (2015)
policy 7.4B states, inter alia, that all development proposals should have regard to the
local context, contribute to a positive relationship between the urban landscape and
natural features, be human in scale, make a positive contribution and should be
informed by the historic environment. The London Plan (2015) policy 7.6B states, inter
alia, that all development proposals should; be of the highest architectural quality, which
complement the local architectural character and be of an appropriate proportion
composition, scale and orientation. Policy 7.8D of The London Plan (2015) states that
„Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their
significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail‟.
Core Policy CS(B) states that „All development shall respond positively to the local and
historic context in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce the positive
attributes of local distinctiveness whilst promoting innovative design and/or enhancing
areas of poor design.‟
Policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013)
reinforces the principles set out under The London Plan (2015) policies 7.4B and 7.6B
and seeks a high standard of design and layout in all development proposals. It goes on
to state, amongst other things, that developments should contribute to the creation of a
positive identity through the quality of building layout and design, should be designed to
complement their surroundings, and should have a satisfactory relationship with
adjoining buildings and spaces.
Layout, Scale and Massing
The design and layout of the replacement school seeks to consolidate the existing single
storey school which sprawls in all directions across the majority of the site, to a more
coherent school with greater capacity, accommodated within a small area due to a
conglomerated and increased massing and scale. This layout was informed by other site
constraints, notably the need to decant/work „around‟ existing school accommodation,
flood risk requirements and „no-build‟ zones on the site, and the need to provide
sufficiently sized and high quality outdoor play and recreation space for pupils. This is in
clear contrast to the incoherent sprawl of buildings on the site, which have been
extended in an ad-hoc fashion over time without the benefit of planned provision for the
above educational aspects of the wider school unit.
The design and layout of the school in an irregular „L‟-shaped building footprint,
combined with its orientation running north-west along the main three storey element,
and east-west along its reduced scale (one to one-and-a-half storey) element, and siting
approximately in north-western part of the central element of the site, would retain a
clear element of spacing around the school building, set back a greater distance from
the nearest neighbours(14.5m - west) than the existing school which projects up to half a
metre or similar to the closest neighbours at various parts of the site. Furthermore, this
nearest projection would be limited to its one to one-and-a-half storey element on its
western projection, with the 3 storey element set back at least 41m from its nearest
neighbours. Accordingly, whilst larger in scale, the distance and spacing around the site,
and „freeing-up‟ of the remainder of the site from building footprint, massing and single
storey scale, is considered to result in clear improvement to the character and
appearance of the site in terms of layout, scale and massing.
The revised scheme includes a „civic approach‟ to the school for pedestrian users
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
109
approaching from the new replacement main entrance from the north-east off Whittlesea
Road (the southern entrance would remain). It would feature a tree lined route which
would enable direct, clear way-finding, aided by a clearly articulated front entrance
(recessed frontage, different external brick colour, signage above). This is considered a
high quality design approach in this regard. The above layout, in contrast to the existing
school, would enable a „softer‟ building frontage on to Whittlesea Road, alongside the
existing contemporary children‟s centre adjacent, with landscaping and attractive „soft
social‟ areas of greenery to the front and rear of the school buildings. The layout of the
buildings would allow for passive surveillance of these areas by users of the school, and
allow for such areas to surround the majority of the school, rather than the existing
building layout which dominates the site and encloses. This would result in an improved
aesthetic outlook for its users and more useable/functional places in close proximity to
the building, such as the hard and informal areas which would surround the ground floor
rooms.
In choosing the above massing, siting and layout of the building, the applicant
considered the feasibility of a variety of options as outlined in the Design & Access
Statement. However, owing to various site constraints, particularly the need to minimise
disruption to the existing operational school that needs to continue teaching during the
construction of the new buildings, the need for high quality and sufficiently sized
play/recreation areas, and physical constraints of the site (drainage considerations, flood
zones and mitigation requirements), the current scale, siting and layout was chosen.
Operational needs and improved internal teaching requirements, needs, efficiencies and
educational standards also influenced the layout of the proposed building.
Given the above considerations, the proposal is considered acceptable in this regard.
Design and Appearance
The main materials for the building would consist of two subtle and contrasting
brown/beige/cream „clay‟ brick finishes, and the school‟s signage above the front
entrance. Elements of the facade would feature a pattern of alternating protruding bricks
expressed in large panels or when wrapping around corners. This would create texture
in the brickwork and add visual interest, particularly when lit by sunlight. This would
provide a contemporary finish and appearance to the school building. Doing so would
also „break up‟ the repetitive sequence of the windows, avoiding an „institutional‟
appearance which emphasises bulk and mass. Given its siting „tucked‟ behind the rear
gardens of neighbouring properties, and the design of the more prominent front entrance
when viewed from Whittlesea Road with recessed frontage, signage, differing brick
type/colour and a break-up of its bulk, alongside the landscaped walkway leading to it,
officers consider that the proposed materials would be appropriate in this setting, and
would allow for a modern, „fresh‟ and uplifting finish and appearance fitting of its
intended land-use.
The accompanying Design and Access Statement outlines that the window design has
been driven by sustainable design principles, incorporating louvres and clear elements
of glazing to allow for plenty of natural light, and the need to deliver an efficient internal
environment. The side panels on the windows would feature coloured opaque glazing to
introduce a pattern of colours which aids in the above contemporary design theme of the
building, adding visual interest and breaking down the visual bulk of the building.
The roof-top plant would be concentrated on the roof of the lowest scaled element of the
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
110
building; the single storey western projection off the main school building at the northern
side of the building. The taller scale of the three storey main building adjoining it to the
east, and one-and-a-half-storey sports hall building adjoining it to its immediate
south/rear, would screen the plant from view from the majority of the site (south, southeast, east and north-east/the approach walkway to the school entrance. Where partially
visible from the north/north-eastern approach walkway to the new school entrance, off
Whittlesea Road, from the children‟s centre to the immediately north, and from the west
(rear of properties on Whittlesea Road to the immediate north-west/west, beyond the
vehicular entrance, the plant would be visually screened by a wrap-around louvered
plant screen.
Subject to a condition, requiring specific material samples to be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority for further consideration, prior to the commencement of the
development, the material approach is considered to be acceptable.
As such, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the character and
appearance of the area.
Landscaping
A landscape strategy has been submitted with the proposal. The proposed materials
have been chosen to match the existing landscape, including tarmac surfacing to the
hard and social area around the building. The soft social spaces would feature lawn to
maximise play surface. Trees would line the main pathway to the building from
Whittlesea Road to the north, and would feature in the external dining area, and as a
screen around the (expanded) car parking area. A year-round planting palette is
proposed. The Cedar tree would be retained. External dining areas and a substantial
increase in open/grassed/landscaped areas would provide a high quality enjoyable
space for students. Hard landscape areas around the building would allow for indoor and
outdoor learning environments. In similar regard, by placing all Phase 1 classrooms on
the ground floor with direct access to outdoor spaces, within a secure line, a high quality,
secure learning environment for young children would be created, resulting in a positive
learning environment.
1.8m high timber picket fencing and 2m high security fencing would feature where where
secure lines are required. The former would feature at the external dining area and
would be keeping with the trees and landscaping in it‟s immediately proximity and
around the site as well as that of neighbouring residential properties and their
boundaries, to ensure no unwanted stimulus affects its pupils. The latter is required for
security purposes to form „secure lines‟. Whilst 2m high and steel in construction, it
would be of a mostly transparent „weldmesh‟ nature which would result in minimal visual
obtrusion and its 2m scale, 200mm above a standard residential boundary fence, set
within the site, is not considered to appear visually obtrusive.
Overall, on balance, the proposed landscaping strategy would result in a high quality,
much improved „useable‟ scheme for the benefit of both the character and appearance
of the site, and the quality and enjoyment of space afforded to its users. This
consideration is reiterated by the comments from the Council‟s landscape officer, who
raises no objection to the proposal, subject to further details which could be secured by
condition. Subject to such details being secured by condition(s), (the suggested
condition details could be combined into fewer conditions) the proposal is considered to
comply with The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and relevant planning
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
111
policies, namely Policies 7.4B, 7.6B and 7.8 C and D of The London Plan (2015), Core
Policy CS1 B and D of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policies DM 1, DM22 and
DM24 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013).
Residential Amenity
Policy 7.6 of The London Plan (2015) states that “Buildings and structures should not
cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the surrounding land and buildings,
particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and
microclimate”.
Policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013)
requires that: “All development and change of use proposals must achieve a high
standard of privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers”. “The assessment of the
design and layout of proposals will have regard to: “the massing, bulk, scale and height
of proposed buildings in relation to the location, the surroundings and any impact on
neighbouring occupiers”.
Amenity impacts in relation to scale, massing and siting and windows/overlooking
The design and layout of the school would feature an irregular „L‟-shaped building
footprint. Its orientation would run north-south along the main three storey element
(extending up to 11.6m high from ground level), and east-west along its reduced scale
(one to one-and-a-half storey extending 6m and 4.4m from ground level respectively)
elements. It would be sited in approximately the north-western part of the central
element of the site, which would retain a clear element of spacing around the school
building, set back a greater distance from the nearest neighbours (14.5m - west) than
the existing school which projects up to half a metre or similar to the closest neighbours
at various parts of the site. Furthermore, this nearest projection would be limited to its
one to one-and-a-half storey element on its western projection, with the 3 storey element
set back at least 41m from its nearest neighbours.
The existing 5 storey „tower‟ which is sited in the central-west element of the site,
immediately east of the existing and proposed car park, beyond residential gardens to
the west, would be demolished and would not be replaced.
In terms of windows/overlooking, the above building layout is such that where closest to
residential properties (elements below three storeys – 14.5m away or greater distances),
the building would not feature window orientations facing those rear property
boundaries. At these elements, the windows would be oriented north towards the
children‟s centre (where loss of privacy of habitable rooms is not considered to
detrimentally arise due to its use) and south towards the school‟s playing fields to the
south (with rear gardens considerably distant to avoid detrimental overlooking/loss of
privacy at approximately 96m or greater away). Where windows are oriented east-west,
in the three storey element of the build, the building/windows would be sited
considerably distant from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties (at least 41m), and
the further rear properties themselves, such that overlooking/loss of privacy is not
considered to arise to a detrimental degree.
Accordingly, whilst larger in scale than the existing single storey buildings which occupy
the site, given the above the considerable increases in distance and spacing around the
site and between the school and neighbouring properties, the overall scale, siting, mass
and bulk of the building, and its window layout, is not considered to lead to detrimental
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
112
amenity impacts to the occupies of neighbouring properties in this regard.
Increase in Intensity of Use
Paragraph 123 of the NPPF (2012) states that planning decisions should aim to “avoid
noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising
from noise from new development”. The proposal would result in a material increase in
the total number of pupils from 544 to 656 (including nursery). As such some additional
noise and disturbance is likely to arise as a result of the intensified use. It is inevitable
that the noise impacts will become more acute as pupil numbers rise over the next few
years. The National Planning Policy Framework places particular emphasis on meeting
the need for school places. Within urban areas, the growth of school places will results in
some additional impacts upon nearby residential properties. The NPPF nevertheless
requires that particular weight be applied to the need to expand and provide new
schools.
The site benefits from an existing use as a school which involves an element of noise
generation during the school day, and to a lesser degree, by community events taking
place at the school. The proposal would increase the distance of the school from
neighbouring properties and considerably increase the amount of open land and play
area on the site, such that noise increases are not considered to take place to a degree
materially greater than existing, particularly given the limited increase in pupil numbers
proposed. Given this limited intensity of increase, noise generation is not considered to
take place to a degree detrimental to neighbouring amenity.
Plant will be installed directly above the single storey element of the building, which at its
western edge would be 16.5m from the nearest (westerly) neighbouring rear garden, and
16m from its house, with similar to greater distances from adjacent properties. However,
given that the proposed plant is likely to be more modern/efficient over existing, and
even with increased pupil numbers, the effect is not considered to result in a level of
noise increase over existing which would be detrimental to neighbouring occupiers.
Further to the above, in terms of general noise generation from school activities or
extracurricular activities/community uses, a suitably worded planning condition could
ensure that no music or any other amplified sound caused as a result of this permission
shall be audible at the boundary of any residential premises in the vicinity of the
premises.
Accordingly, it is considered that whilst some increase in noise will arise as a result of
the development, the additional noise and disturbance is not considered to significantly
undermine residential amenity to a detrimental degree, and would not outweigh the
strong emphasis given to expanding schools within the communities which they are
intended to serve as set out in National Planning Policy and the support within the Local
Plan.
Vehicle Access and Traffic
The proposed car parking area would be located in the same area as existing. Whilst the
proposal would result in increased pupil numbers, the level of formal car parking
provision (informally agreed the applicant and which could be secured by planning
condition as suggested later in the report if permission is granted) would exceed existing
(by 2 spaces), at 48 spaces. This provision is for existing and future staff / staff
increases rather than for pupil/parent parking, which is still encouraged, via the School
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
113
Travel Plan, to take place by alternative methods (the school have no powers to prevent
parking on the public highway). Furthermore, the siting of the building and proposed
additional primary pedestrian route from the north, as well as the south, would
encourage pedestrian traffic through improved accessibility. As such, significant
increases in vehicular traffic to and from the site, which would take place to a detrimental
degree to neighbours, are not considered to arise.
Community Use of Facilities
The proposed school building is intended primarily for primary education. However, as
per the existing school, it is proposed to use it for community activities during term time
and holiday periods as well as some evening and weekend use. Use of the building and
external sports pitches by the local community outside of school hours would be
supported by Local Plan policy.
The application is accompanied by a statement of community use which outlines the
school‟s intentions to carry on as existing in terms of activities and use. The school
wishes to continue to offer community access for groups and individuals during and
outside of normal school hours. The additional facilities for the use of the local
community outside of school hours will result in additional vehicular trips and some noise
and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. As such, to reduce this impact, a condition is
recommended to be added to the permission restricting the hours of use of the building
and the playing fields for community use and to request further details of such activities.
Construction Phasing
It is inevitable that noise and disturbance would increase during the construction
process. However, the impacts would be temporary and can be mitigated to some
extent. A detailed construction management strategy (logistics plan) has been submitted
with the application. Highway officers are confident that its overall aims and objectives
are sufficient and achievable. They note that it would appear that temporary traffic
restrictions are required and these need to be agreed and factored into the development
timescale, and therefore it is essential that early engagement is made with the Council‟s
Highway Network Management regarding construction traffic. If permission is granted,
this information could be relayed to the applicant by way of an informative attached to
the planning permission. Accordingly, the proposal is considered acceptable in this
regard.
Lighting
Whilst the building would be considerably further away from neighbouring rear properties
and their rear garden boundaries than the existing school, particularly where above
single storey in scale, given the extent of works proposed, details of external lighting
could be secured as part of the (hard) landscaping condition to ensure detrimental
sighting of lighting columns/collards or similar features does not take place unacceptably
close to residential properties. Subject to this, the proposal is considered acceptable in
this regard.
In summary, officers consider that the proposal would accord with policy 7.6B of The
London plan (2015) and policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Polices
Local Plan (2015).
Traffic and Parking
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
114
The NPPF recognises that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating
sustainable development but also contribute to wider sustainability and health objectives.
It further recognises that different polices and measures will be required in different
communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from
urban to rural areas. The London Plan (2015) policies 6.3, 6.9, 6.10 and 6.13 seek to
regulate parking in order to minimise additional car travel and encourage use of more
sustainable means of travel and ensure that development proposals will not adversely
impact on the transport capacity and the transport network, at both corridor and local
level. This is further emphasised by core policy CS 1 R of the Harrow Core strategy
(2012). Policy DM 42 of the Harrow Development Management Local Plan outlines the
council‟s parking standards and cycle parking standards.
The concerns raised in the letters of representation received are noted. In terms of
construction impacts, as outlined earlier in the report, whilst noise and disturbance would
increase during the construction process, the impacts would be temporary and can be
mitigated to some extent, with the construction management strategy (logistics plan)
submitted with the application considered to contain acceptable mitigation in this regard.
The main area of concern relates to parking constraints and volume of traffic generation
associated with the school. Currently, parents are not permitted to park on site to dropoff children, and are discouraged from doing so via the School Travel Plan (STP). This is
consistent with the aims of Transport for London (whose support is contingent upon no
parking increase), and the Local Planning Authority and its Highway officers as it would
lead to further traffic generation and congestion on surrounding streets, and travel
patterns for school children which run against the aims of the STP.
In terms of staff, the Highway officers consulted on this application stated that whilst they
would not expect additional car parking provision, they would not support a loss/shortfall
of existing car parking capacity on the site, particularly in light of the constrained nature
of parking on surrounding streets.
As originally submitted, the application proposed to reduce staff car parking provision
from 62 spaces to 34 spaces. However, during the application process, the applicant
confirmed that the existing site is only capable of accommodating an area of 46 formally
marked-out car parking spaces. During the application process, the applicant has
submitted a revised plan which extended the car parking area southwards. The revised
plan features capacity to accommodate a total of 48 formally marked out car parking
spaces (the formal mark-out could be achieved as part of the requirements of a
landscaping condition).
Highways officers have indicated that they are satisfied with the revised (48 car parking
spaces) now proposed, as this would address their concern with the originally submitted
details, as there would no longer be to a shortfall over existing car parking provision.
Revised consultation on this increased parking provision/car park surface coverage was
carried out on 7th March. It ends on 21st March. The above committee resolution is based
on the proviso that no objections to the proposed increase in car parking provision and
surface area are received by the end of the consultation period, with any formal issue of
planning permission (decision notice) to take place after this period.
The proposed car parking area includes provision for 2 disabled parking spaces,
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
115
consistent with the expectations of Highways officers.
Cycle parking must be provided in accordance with London Plan 2015 standards which
amounts to 94 long stay spaces and 6 short stay spaces. This is based on a total
number of 656 pupils and 98 staff. Details of the location and type of storage need to be
identified, which could be secured as part of the wider landscaping condition suggested
below.
Subject to the above measures being secured by condition, for the reasons outlined
above the transport impacts of the proposal are considered to be acceptable, having
regard to the aims and objectives of policy 6.3 of The London Plan, core policy CS 1 R
of the Harrow Core Strategy, and policies DM 42 and 43 of the Harrow Development
Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
Development and Flood Risk
The NPPF (2012) outlines the need to manage flood risk from all sources (paragraph
100). Policies 5.13, 5.12 and 5.14 of The London Plan seek to address surface water
management and a reduction in flood risk. Policy 5.13 of the London Plan requires that
proposals should achieve greenfield run off rates and ensure that surface water is
managed as close to its source as possible in accordance with the sustainable urban
drainage (SUDS) hierarchy. Similarly, policy DM 10 of the Harrow Development
Management Policies Local Plan (2013) requires that “proposals for new development
will be required to make provision for the installation and management of measures for
the efficient use of mains water and for the control and reduction of surface water run off.
Substantial weight will be afforded to the achievement of greenfield run off rates”.
The site lies in flood zone 1 and therefore has a low risk of fluvial flooding. It lies within a
Critical Drainage Area. As such, there are no restrictions in planning policy for
constructing of a building on the site, subject to surface water management controls. The
proposed details, including the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, have been referred to
the Council‟s Drainage Engineers who are satisfied with the proposals, subject to further
details which, at the time of writing this report, had broadly been informally agreed.
Drainage officers are therefore confident that the outstanding details are capable of
being secured by planning condition. Subject to the outstanding drainage details being
secured by condition before the development is commenced, the development is
considered to fulfil the objectives of the NPPF concerning managed impacts upon flood
risk and would satisfy London Plan (2015) policies 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14, policy CS1 U of
the Harrow Core Strategy and policy DM 10 of The Harrow Development Management
Policies Local Plan (2013).
Accessibility
The London Plan (2015) requires all new development in London to achieve the highest
standards of accessibility and inclusive design as outlined under policy 7.2. Policy DM 2
of the harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) seeks to ensure that
buildings and public spaces are readily accessible to all.
The revised scheme includes a „civic approach‟ to the school off Whittlesea Road along
a clear, straight pathway leading to the new school entrance, for users arriving on foot
from the north/north-east,. The existing pedestrian access off Whittlesea Road to the
south would also be retained. Compared to existing, this should encourage dispersal of
pedestrian traffic and more clear, legible way-finding and routes to the school.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
116
The new, primary, entrance to the north-east would feature a paved „level‟ approach
leading directly to the main entrance to the school building. All entrances will not exceed
a gradient of 1:21 to avoid creating a difficult approach for less able-bodied pedestrians.
Level access and entrance doors meeting the requirements of Section 6 of the relevant
British Standard BS8300 would be provided to the building both internally and externally
around the building.
The proposals include the retention of 2 accessible parking bays (exceeding the 1
disable space requested by the highway authority which is welcomed) located in close
proximity to the main building.
All areas and circulation spaces within the building have been designed to be accessible
in respect of door opening widths and internal circulation routes. Corridor widths would
all have a minimum width of 1800mm and all doors would have a minimum clearance of
800mm. A lift would be provided to the upper floors. Accessible bathrooms would feature
throughout.
Overall, these measures are considered acceptable to enable inclusive access for all
throughout the school as per the requirements of policy 7.2 of the London Plan (2015)
and policy DM 2 of the Harrow DMP LP (2013).
Sustainability
London Plan (2015) policy 5.2 „Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions‟ defines the
established hierarchy for assessing the sustainability aspects of new development. This
policy sets out the „lean, clean, green‟ approach, which is expanded in London Plan
policies 5.3 to 5.11. Policy 5.2 B outlines the targets for carbon dioxide emissions
reduction in buildings. These targets are expressed as minimum improvements over the
Target Emission Rate (TER) outlined in the national Building Regulations. Currently the
target is a 40% reduction for all major development proposals. Policy 5.2 C outlines that
“major development proposals should include a detailed energy assessment to
demonstrate how the targets for carbon dioxide emissions are to be met within the
framework of the energy hierarchy”. Policy 5.3 notes that (A) “The highest standards of
sustainable design and construction should be achieved in London to improve the
environmental performance of new developments” and (C) “Major development
proposals should meet the minimum standards outlined in the Mayor‟s supplementary
planning guidance… The standards include measures to achieve other policies in this
Plan and the following sustainable design principles… minimising pollution (including
noise, air and urban runoff””
Policy DM 12 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan seeks to
ensure that the design and layout of development proposals are sustainable. It states
that development will need to “utilise natural systems such as passive solar design and,
wherever possible incorporate high performing energy retention materials”…”Proposals
should make provision for natural ventilation and shading to prevent internal overheating
and incorporate techniques that enhance biodiversity”. Policy DM 14 highlights that
development proposals should incorporate renewable energy technology where feasible.
Harrow Council‟s Supplementary Planning Document on sustainable Building Design
(adopted May 2009) seeks to address climate change through minimising emissions of
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
117
carbon dioxide.
The building has been designed to benefit from solar heating opportunities through
exposed thermal mass by exposing the concrete ceiling soffits which act as „thermal
sponges‟ to absorb daytime heat gains and limit the rise in room temperature, and
positioning the large, low occupancy, volumes on the south façade and teaching spaces
on the east/ west facades. Night cooling is then used to flush the heat from the concrete
slab to create the potential for radiative and convective cooling the following day. Natural
daylight has also been designed-for with glazing areas optimized to balance the
competing demands of delighting and thermal energy balance. Assisted natural
ventilation would be provided, and the building fabric has been designed to exceed
minimum standards for energy use in educational buildings.
Gas source heat pumps have been considered, via calculations carried out, as the most
appropriate low zero carbon solution to meet the project‟s energy/carbon targets. They
would therefore form the primary heating mechanism for the school, via a single gas
absorption heat pump configured to act as a lead heat source and sized to meet the
base heat demand for hot water generation. The system proposed would generate a
building that achieves a BREEAM „very good‟ rating.
In terms of air quality, Environmental Health officers raise no objection subject to an air
quality (AQ) assessment and an AQ neutral assessment, including an assessment of
dust and other airborne risks from construction. If the AQ neutral requirement is not met,
no objection is raised subject to further mitigation being secured by planning
condition(s), with the impacts on the AQ neutral assessment calculated so their efficacy
can be quantified. At the time of writing this report, the applicant was preparing the
above documentation, and given the substantial net reduction in building footprint and
increase in green and landscaped open space on the site, an air quality neutral
requirement is considered likely to be met. However, it is recommended that an
appropriate planning condition is included which is flexible to both scenarios to
accommodate the above requirements as necessary. Subject to such a condition, no
objection is raised in this regard.
Given the above, subject to the above air quality condition, it is considered that, overall,
the proposal is in accordance with policies 5.2 and 5.3 of The London Plan, core policy
CS1 T, policies DM 12 and DM 14 of the Harrow Development Management Policies
Local Plan, the Council‟s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on
Sustainable Building Design and the Mayor of London‟s 2014 SPD on Sustainable
Design and Construction.
Trees, Development and Biodiversity
Policy 7.21B of The London Plan (2015) states that “Existing trees of value should be
retained and any loss as the result of development should be replaced following the
principle of „right place, right tree‟. Wherever appropriate, the planting of additional trees
should be included in new developments, particularly large-canopied species”.
Policy DM 22 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan states that:
“A. The removal of trees subject to TPOs or assessed as being of significant amenity
value will only be considered acceptable where it can be demonstrated that the loss of
the tree(s) is outweighed by the wider public benefits of the proposal.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
118
“B. Development proposals will be required to include hard and soft landscaping that:
a. Is appropriate to the character of the area;
b. Is well laid out in terms of access, car parking and the living conditions of future
occupiers and neighbours;
c. Achieves a suitable visual setting for the building(s);
d. Provides for sufficient space for new or existing trees and planting to grow; and
e. Supports biodiversity.”
“Proposals for works to trees in conservation areas and those the subject of tree
preservation orders will be permitted where the works do not risk compromising the
amenity value or survival of the tree.”
The applicant has not provided a full arboricultural assessment with the application.
None of the trees are protected by a tree preservation order and they are limited in
number on this site owing to the expanse of existing buildings on the site. Other trees
would be removed, but replacement planting would form part of a comprehensive
landscaping strategy, with more planting than existing. The Council‟s Tree officer has
reviewed the proposals, and considers the proposal capable of achieving a high quality
outcome subject to a full arboricultural assessment and tree protection plan to secure
the retention of existing trees where proposed (as well as the wider landscaping
measured suggested earlier in the report . Subject to a full arboricultural assessment
and tree protection measures being secured by condition, the proposal is considered to
satisfy the above policy context.
Policies DM 20 and DM 21 seek to ensure the protection of biodiversity and access to
nature. Policy DM 20 requires that “The design and layout of new development should
retain and enhance any significant features of biodiversity value within the site. Potential
impacts on biodiversity should be avoided or appropriate mitigation sought”. Policy DM
21 outlines that proposals should secure the restoration and recreation of significant
components of the natural environment.
The biodiversity of the site will be enhanced through the planting of new trees and
shrubs. Therefore officers consider that the ecological and aesthetic value of the area
would be enhanced.
To ensure that no offences occur under the wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, a
condition is recommended to ensure that any vegetation clearance work is undertaken
outside of the bird nesting season between March and August or if this is not possible for
a suitably qualified ecologist to determine if nesting birds are present before any
vegetation clearance takes place. In addition, a condition is recommended for bird boxes
or bird bricks to be erected in suitable locations on or near the new school building which
would cater for Regional (London) or UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species.
Notwithstanding the above, the comments received from the Council‟s Ecology officer in
relation to the submitted bat surveys noting that bats are roosting on the (existing) site
are noted. The Local Planning Authority needs to be satisfied that all three of the
relevant „derogation tests‟ with respect to protected species are applied where
necessary. In order to consider this, relevant information is required from the applicant,
before planning permission can be granted. This is a legal duty which cannot be
discharged by requiring details to be submitted via planning condition after the grant of
planning permission. Therefore the applicant needs to provide the Local Planning
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
119
Authority with details of mitigation and how the three tests will be met before planning
permissions is approved.
At the time of writing this report, the applicant is aware of this requested information and
is seeking to provide the information before this application is considered by the
Planning Committee. Subject to the necessary information being received by the Local
Planning Authority in the meantime, and satisfying the concerns of the Council‟s Ecology
officer in this respect, and subject to the aforementioned conditions (site clearance and
bird boxes/bricks) in respect of the other above matters, officers consider that the
ecological and aesthetic value of the area would be significantly enhanced and the
development would thereby comply with policies 7.21 and 7.19 of The London plan
(2015) and policies DM 20, 21 and 22 of the Harrow Development Management Policies
Local Plan (2013).
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
Policy 7.3 of The London Plan (2015) and core policy CS1 E of the Harrow Core
Strategy 2012 seek to ensure that developments should address security issues and
provide safe and secure environments. The proposed site is within a residential area and
as such, the school receives very good levels of natural surveillance at its entrance
points and from rear gardens of properties which surround it. The site will be protected
by a secure line which will prevent people gaining accessing to the
rear/secured/vulnerable user areas of the site unless through the designated entrance.
The cycle parking spaces should be sited (and secured by condition) in areas which
would benefit from natural/passive surveillance.
The Design and Access Statement (which would form an approved document of the
planning permission to which the development should adhere, should permission be
granted) outlines how the proposal would incorporate further crime prevention measures
in accordance with „Secured by Design‟(SBD) principles, particularly the SBD “New
Schools 2014” guidance document. All external windows and doors would be made to
independently certified standards set out in BS 7950 and PAS 24 respectively.
Consideration would be given to the design of rainwater goods to ensure they cannot be
climbed.
Given the above, the proposal is considered satisfactory and in accordance with the
above policies in this regard.
Consultation Responses
The issues raised in representations received relate to highway safety/capacity and
parking implications of the proposal. These issues were considered by the Council‟s
highways officers, and, on balance, subject to no decrease in existing parking levels (to
be secured by condition), as set out in the relevant section of the report above, the
proposal is considered acceptable in this regard.
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons considered above, and weighing up the development plan policies
and proposals, and other material considerations including comments received in
response to notification and consultation as set out above this application is
recommended for grant.
CONDITIONS
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
120
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission.
REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2 Save where varied by the other planning conditions comprising this planning
permission, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved plans: Cedars Manor Primary School Travel Plan 2015, dated December
2015, 5273/004/R03 Outline Transport Feasibility Assessment, 14464cv-01
Topographical Survey, 14464cv-02 Topographical Survey, 101 REV A Drainage Layout
& Schedule, TR04 Vehicle Tracking, TR05 Vehicle Tracking, TR06 Vehicle Tracking,
TR07 Vehicle Tracking, RAB:902B Flood Risk Assessment, CDR-A-J-00-X03 Design
and Access Statement, CDR-A-J-00-X04 REV.01 Planning Statement, CDR-A-J-00-X08
REV.01 Statement of Community Use dated 12/01/16, CDR-A-L-00-X01 REV.2 GA
AXONOMETRIC, CDR-A-L-00-X03 REV.2 3D VIEWS - SHEET 01, CDR-A-L-20-201
REV.3 GA PLANS - SECOND FLOOR, CDR-A-L-20-301 REV.2 GA PLANS - ROOF
PLAN, CDR-A-L-20-X01 REV.2 PROPOSED NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS, CDR-AL-20-X02 REV.2 PROPOSED EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS, CDR-A-L-20-X03 REV.3
PROPOSED GA SECTIONS SHEET 1, CDR-A-L-20-X04 REV.3 PROPOSED GA
SECTIONS SHEET 2, CDR-A-L-20-X06 REV.1 PROPOSED NORTH & SOUTH
ELEVATIONS – COLOURED, CDR-A-L-20-X07 REV.1 PROPOSED EAST & WEST
ELEVATIONS – COLOURED, CDR-A-L-90-001 REV.1 SITE LOCATION PLAN, CDR-AL-90-002 REV.2 PROPOSED BLOCK PLAN, CDR-A-L-90-X01 REV.1 EXISTING SITE
INFORMATION - SITE PHOTOS, CDR-A-L-90-X02 REV.1 PROPOSED SITE
SECTIONS, DR-A-L-92-X01 REV.2 PROPOSED SITE DEMOLITION PLAN, CDR-A-S41-X01 REV.2 DATED 06/01/16 - EXTERNAL FINISHES SCHEDULE, SCOTCH
PARTNERS' NOISE EMISSION ASSESSMENT, REV.0, DATED 5TH JANUARY 2016,
CONSTRUCTION METHOD STATEMEND DATED 04/01/16, PHASE I GEOENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT DATED 10TH JULY 2014, PHASE II
GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 11TH SEPTEMBER 2014, D2375 L.001
REV.B LANDSACPE COLOUR MASTERPLAN, D2375 L.002 REV.B BB103 AREAS
COMPARISON PLAN, D2375 L.003 REV.B LANDSCAPE ACCESS PLAN, D2375 L.004
REV.B BB103 LANDSCAPE SECURITY ZONE PLAN, D2375 L.005 REV.B
INDICATIVE LEGACY EQUIPMENT RELOCATION PLAN, D2375 L.006 REV.A
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF LEGACY EQUIPMENT, D2375 L.100 REV.B
COMBINED HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPE GNEERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN,
D2375 L.201 REV.B LANDSCAPE BOUNDARY PLAN, D2375 L.400 REV.A
LANDSCAPE SITE SECTIONS, D2375 L.600 REV.B LANDSCAPE LEVELS PLAN,
RECORDS OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM EFA TO SCHOOL, DS/444715 SURFACE
WATER DRAINAGE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY DATED 11/01/16, PART L COMPLIANCE
REPORT REV.1 DATED 01/12/15, RT-MME-117448-02 PRE-DEVELOPMENT
ARBORICULTURAL SURVEY DATED AUGUST 2014, RT-MME-117449-02
PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT DATED AUGUST 2014, RT-MME117449-02-02 DAYTIME BAT SURVEY DATED AUGUST 2014, RT-MME-119254-03
NOCTURNAL AND DAWN BAT SURVEYS DATED JUNE 2015, RT-MME-119254-04
NOCTURNAL EMERGENCE AND DAWN RE-ENTRY BAT SURVEYS DATED
SEPTEMBER 2015, SB-MME-120335 BAT SURVEY AND LICENCE APPLICATION
DATED JULY 2015, CDR-A-J-00-X07 REV.01 Statement of Community Involvement
dated 12/01/16, CDR-A-L-20-001 REV 3 GA PLANS - GROUND FLOOR, CDR-A-L-20101 REV 3 GA PLANS - FIRST FLOOR
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
121
3 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans and documents, details and
samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted
below shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority
before the commencement of any works above damp proof course level of the
building(s) hereby permitted is carried out.
a: the external surfaces of the buildings
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall
thereafter be retained.
REASON: To safeguard the character and appearance of the locality, in accordance with
policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). To
ensure that measures are agreed and in place to safeguard the character and
appearance of the locality during the construction phase of the development so that the
development is completed in accordance with approved details, this condition is a PRECOMMENCEMENT condition.
4 No site works or development shall commence until details of the levels of the existing
and proposed building(s), road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to the adjoining land and
highway(s), and any other changes proposed in the levels of the site, have been
submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: To ensure that the works are carried out at suitable levels in relation to the
highway and adjoining properties in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring
residents, the appearance of the development, drainage, gradient of access and future
highway improvement in accordance with policy DM 1 and DM 10 of the Harrow
Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). To ensure that the works are
carried out at suitable levels in relation to the highway and adjoining properties in the
interests of the amenity of neighbouring residents, the appearance of the development,
drainage, gradient of access and future highway improvement, this condition is a PRECOMMENCEMENT condition.
5 The construction of the building(s) hereby approved shall not be commenced until
works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on site in accordance with details
to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The works
shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: To ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided in accordance with
sewers for aadoption in accordance with the NPPF, London Plan (2015) policies 5.12,
5.13 and 5.14, policy CS1 U of the Harrow Core Strategy and policies DM 9 and 10 of
the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013).
6 The construction of the building(s) hereby approved shall not be commenced until
works for the disposal of surface water have been provided on site in accordance with
details to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The
works shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: To ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided, reduce and mitigate
the effects of flood risk in accordance with the NPPF, London Plan (2015) policies 5.12,
5.13 and 5.14, policy CS1 U of the Harrow Core Strategy and policies DM 9 and 10 of
the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013).
7 The construction of the building(s) hereby approved shall not be commenced until
surface water attenuation and storage works have been provided on site in accordance
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
122
with details to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.
The works shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: To ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided in accordance with
sewers for adoption in accordance with the NPPF, London Plan (2015) policies 5.12,
5.13 and 5.14, policy CS1 U of the Harrow Core Strategy and policies DM 9 and 10 of
the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013).
8 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until there has been
submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, and implemented, a scheme
of hard and soft landscape works for the site.
Soft landscape works shall include: planting plans (at a scale not less than 1:100),
cultivation works to be undertaken, and schedule of plants/trees/shrubs, noting species,
plant/tree/shrub sizes, proposed numbers/densities and implementation programme.
Hard landscape works shall include: details of materials used, hard standing treatment,
details of boundary treatment and proposed fencing, formally marked-out car parking
layout for 48 car parking spaces (including 2 disabled spaces), location and specification
of external lighting detached from the school building, including any lighting columns or
bollards.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the
appearance of the development, in compliance with policies DM 1, DM 22 and DM 23 of
the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
9 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until there has been
submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, a scheme for an air quality
assessment and an air quality neutral assessment, including an assessment of dust and
other airborne risks from construction.
If the development hereby permitted does not meet the air quality neutral requirement,
details of the impacts on the air quality neutral assessment shall be calculated and
provided to the Local Planning Authority so their efficacy can be quantified and
proportionate mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by The
Local Planning Authority, and implemented. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: To ensure that the proposal does not result in adverse air pollution impacts, in
accordance with Policy 5.3 of The London Plan (2015) and the Mayor of London‟s 2014
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Sustainable Design and Construction.
10 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall
be carried out and implemented in full in the first planting and seeding seasons following
the occupation of the buildings, or the completion of the development, whichever is the
sooner. Any existing or new trees or shrubs which, within a period of 5 years from the
completion of the development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or
diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season, with others of a similar size and
species, unless the local authority agrees any variation in writing.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the
appearance of the development, in compliance with policies DM 1 and DM 22 of the
Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
11 The development hereby approved shall not be commence until details of the means
of protection of the trees, hedgerows and other existing planting to be retained within the
site, and adjacent trees within adjoining sites, (including a tree protection plan), have
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
123
been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. The details
shall include:
a) identification of root protection areas;
b) the method of any excavation proposed within the root protection areas;
c) the type, height and location of protective fencing; and
d) measures for the prevention of soil compaction within the root protection areas.
REASON: The existing trees represent an important amenity feature which the local
planning authority considers should be protected, and as required by policy DM 22 of the
Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
12 Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby approved, details of cycle storage (94
long stay spaces and 6 6 short term spaces) on the site, including location, some of
which can be partly substituted by scooter parking for children, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by The Local Planning Authority. The cycle storage thus approved
shall be carried out and implemented in full on site for the sole use of the school and
nursery in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained for the duration of
this educational use on the site.
REASON: To ensure the satisfactory provision of safe cycle storage facilities, to provide
facilities for all the users of the site and in the interests of highway safety and
sustainable transport, in accordance with policy 6.9B of The London Plan 2015 and
policy DM 42 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
13 If the development hereby permitted commences during the bird breeding season
(March to August) inclusive, trees and buildings in the vicinity of the site shall be
examined for nests or signs of breeding birds. Should an active bird‟s nest be located,
time must be allowed for birds to fledge and the nest should not be disturbed during
building works.
REASON: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with
policies DM 20 and DM 21 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan
(2013).
14 The development hereby permitted shall not commence above damp proof course
level, until details of bird and bat boxes to cater for National/Regional (London) or UK
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species, to be erected on the development or within the
site, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The details approved shall be implemented on site and thereafter retained.
REASON: To enhance the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with
policies DM 20 and DM 21 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan
(2013).
15 The use of the development shall not commence until a community use agreement
and management strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
The scheme shall include access by non-educational
establishments, details of activities/events and the numbers of persons attending
including a mechanism to record usage, details of pricing policy, hours of use,
management responsibilities, and a mechanism for review. The development shall not
be used at any time other than in strict compliance with the approved community use
agreement and management strategy and it shall be kept updated to reflect changing
usage of the building/external spaces and shall be made available at anytime for
inspection upon request for the local planning authority.
REASON: To secure well managed and safe community access to the facilities provided
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
124
in accordance with policy DM 46 of the Harrow Development Management Policies
Local Plan (2013) and to ensure that the community use would not give rise to adverse
detrimental impacts on the residential amenities of the surrounding neighbouring
occupiers in accordance with policy 7.6B of the London Plan (2015) and policy DM 1 of
the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013).
16 No music or any other amplified sound caused as a result of this permission shall be
audible at the boundary of any residential premises either attached to, or in the vicinity
of, the premises to which this permission refers.
REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not give rise to undue noise
nuisance to neighbouring residents, in accordance with policy 7.6B of the London Plan
(2015) and policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan
(2013).
17 The Cedars Manor School Travel Plan shall be updated and submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the approved
details annually and prior to occupation. Thereafter a Travel Plan review shall be
undertaken and a revised Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority annually and not later than 31st May each year. The
mitigation measures identified in the Travel Plan shall be implemented for the duration of
the development.
REASON: To promote sustainable transport and reduce the impact of the development
on the surrounding road network in accordance with London Plan polices 6.1 and 6.3
and policy DM 42 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013).
INFORMATIVES
1 The following policies are relevant to this decision:
National Planning Policy:
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
The London Plan (2015):
3.16 – Protection and Enhancement of Social Infrastructure
3.18 – Education Facilities
5.2 – Minimising carbon dioxide emissions
5.3 – Sustainable design and construction
5.6- - Decentralised Energy in development proposals
5.7 – Renewable Energy
5.8 – Innovative Energy technologies
5.9 – Overheating and Cooling
5.10 – Urban Greening
5.11 – Green roofs and development site environs
5.12 – Flood risk management
5.13 – Sustainable Drainage
5.18 – Construction, excavation and demolition waste
6.3 – Assessing effects of development on transport capacity
6.9 – Cycling
6.10 – Walking
6.13 – Parking
6.11 – Smoothing traffic flow and tackling congestion
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
125
7.1 – Building London‟s neighbourhoods and communities
7.2 – An inclusive environment
7.3 – Designing out crime
7.4 – Local character
7.5 - Public Realm
7.6 – Architecture
7.8 – Heritage Assets
7.13 – Safety, security and resilience to emergency
7.15 – Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes
7.18 – Protecting Local Open space and Addressing Local Deficiency
7.19 – Biodiversity and Access to Nature
7.21 – Trees and Woodlands
Harrow Core Strategy (2012)
CS1: Overarching Principles
CS1 B – Local Character
CS 1 Q/R – Transport
CS 1 T – Sustainability
CS 1 U – Sustainable Flood Risk Management
Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013):
Policy DM 1 – Achieving a High Standard of Development
Policy DM 2 – Achieving Lifetime Neighbourhoods
Policy DM 7 – Heritage Assets
Policy DM 9 – Managing Flood Risk
Policy DM 10 – On Site Water Management and Surface Water Attenuation
Policy DM 12 – Sustainable Design and Layout
Policy DM 14 – Renewable Energy Technology
Policy DM 18 – Protection of Open Space
Policy DM 19 – Provision of New Open Space
Policy DM 20 – Protection of Biodiversity and Access to Nature
Policy DM 21 – Enhancement of Biodiversity and Access to Nature
Policy DM 22 – Trees and Landscaping
Policy DM 23 – Streetside Greenness and Forecourt Greenery
Policy DM 42 – Parking Standards
Policy DM 43 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
Policy DM 44 - Servicing
Policy DM 45 – Waste Management
Policy DM 46 – New Community Sport and Educational Facilities
Other Relevant Guidance:
Supplementary Planning Document Sustainable Building Design (2009)
Supplementary Planning Document: Access for All (2006)
Harrow Surface Water Management Plan (2012)
Mayor of London - Sustainable Design and Construction – Supplementary Planning
Guidance (2014)
2 CONSIDERATE CONTRACTOR CODE OF PRACTICE
The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements in the attached Considerate
Contractor Code of Practice, in the interests of minimising any adverse effects arising
from building operations, and in particular the limitations on hours of working.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
126
3 INFORMATIVE:
COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING CONDITIONS
IMPORTANT: Compliance With Planning Conditions Requiring Submission and
Approval of Details Before Development Commences
- You will be in breach of planning permission if you start development without complying
with a condition requiring you to do something before you start. For example, that a
scheme or details of the development must first be approved by the Local Planning
Authority.
- Carrying out works in breach of such a condition will not satisfy the requirement to
commence the development within the time permitted.
- Beginning development in breach of a planning condition will invalidate your planning
permission.
- If you require confirmation as to whether the works you have carried out are
acceptable, then you should apply to the Local Planning Authority for a certificate of
lawfulness.
4 INFORMATIVE:
GRANT WITH PRE-APP
5 INFORMATIVE:
The drainage details requested by condition above should address the following;
a)
A copy of a letter from Thames Water with permission for connections to the
public sewers is required.
b)
The development is subject to a limitation on a discharge to 5 l/s, consequently
there will be a storage implication and the system should be checked for no
flooding for a storm of critical duration and period of 1 in 100 years. These storage
calculations should include all details of inputs and outputs together with
impermeable and permeable areas drained. Please note that the M5-60(mm) is
21 and the Ratio “r” should read 0.43 for this region. Similarly the Volumetric Runoff Coefficient should be substantiated by calculations (Reference to Chapter 13
of The Wallingford Procedure) or a figure of 0.95 should be used for winter and
summer. Please note that a value for UCWI of 150 is appropriate when calculating
Percentage Runoff (PR) for storage purposes. Please include 30% allowance for
climate change.
c)
Full details of drainage layout including details of the outlet and cross section of
proposed storage are required.
d)
Full details of any flow restrictions (hydrobrake) that are proposed for this scheme
need to be submitted together with the relevant graphs.
e)
Full details of SuDS with its Maintenance Plan should also be provided.
6 INFORMATIVE:
It is essential that early engagement is made with the Council‟s Highway Network
Management regarding construction traffic during the construction of the works hereby
approved It would appear that temporary traffic restrictions are required and these need
to be agreed and factored into the development timescale. (contact Highways Network
Management on nrswa@harrow.gov.uk or telephone 020 8424 1799).
Plan Nos: Cedars Manor Primary School School Travel Plan 2015, dated December
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
127
2015, 5273/004/R03 Outline Transport Feasibility Assessment, 14464cv-01
Topographical Survey, 14464cv-02 Topographical Survey, 101 REV A Drainage Layout
& Schedule, TR04 Vehicle Tracking, TR05 Vehicle Tracking, TR06 Vehicle Tracking,
TR07 Vehicle Tracking, RAB:902B Flood Risk Assessment, CDR-A-J-00-X03 Design
and Access Statement, CDR-A-J-00-X04 REV.01 Planning Statement, CDR-A-J-00-X08
REV.01 Statement of Community Use dated 12/01/16, CDR-A-L-00-X01 REV.2 GA
AXONOMETRIC, CDR-A-L-00-X03 REV.2 3D VIEWS - SHEET 01, CDR-A-L-20-201
REV.3 GA PLANS - SECOND FLOOR, CDR-A-L-20-301 REV.2 GA PLANS - ROOF
PLAN, CDR-A-L-20-X01 REV.2 PROPOSED NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS, CDR-AL-20-X02 REV.2 PROPOSED EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS, CDR-A-L-20-X03 REV.3
PROPOSED GA SECTIONS SHEET 1, CDR-A-L-20-X04 REV.3 PROPOSED GA
SECTIONS SHEET 2, CDR-A-L-20-X06 REV.1 PROPOSED NORTH & SOUTH
ELEVATIONS – COLOURED, CDR-A-L-20-X07 REV.1 PROPOSED EAST & WEST
ELEVATIONS – COLOURED, CDR-A-L-90-001 REV.1 SITE LOCATION PLAN, CDR-AL-90-002 REV.2 PROPOSED BLOCK PLAN, CDR-A-L-90-X01 REV.1 EXISTING SITE
INFORMATION - SITE PHOTOS, CDR-A-L-90-X02 REV.1 PROPOSED SITE
SECTIONS, DR-A-L-92-X01 REV.2 PROPOSED SITE DEMOLITION PLAN, CDR-A-S41-X01 REV.2 DATED 06/01/16 - EXTERNAL FINISHES SCHEDULE, SCOTCH
PARTNERS' NOISE EMISSION ASSESSMENT, REV.0, DATED 5TH JANUARY 2016,
CONSTRUCTION METHOD STATEMEND DATED 04/01/16, PHASE I GEOENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT DATED 10TH JULY 2014, PHASE II
GROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 11TH SEPTEMBER 2014, D2375 L.001
REV.B LANDSACPE COLOUR MASTERPLAN, D2375 L.002 REV.B BB103 AREAS
COMPARISON PLAN, D2375 L.003 REV.B LANDSCAPE ACCESS PLAN, D2375 L.004
REV.B BB103 LANDSCAPE SECURITY ZONE PLAN, D2375 L.005 REV.B
INDICATIVE LEGACY EQUIPMENT RELOCATION PLAN, D2375 L.006 REV.A
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF LEGACY EQUIPMENT, D2375 L.100 REV.B
COMBINED HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPE GNEERAL ARRANGEMENT PLAN,
D2375 L.201 REV.B LANDSCAPE BOUNDARY PLAN, D2375 L.400 REV.A
LANDSCAPE SITE SECTIONS, D2375 L.600 REV.B LANDSCAPE LEVELS PLAN,
RECORDS OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM EFA TO SCHOOL, DS/444715 SURFACE
WATER DRAINAGE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY DATED 11/01/16, PART L COMPLIANCE
REPORT REV.1 DATED 01/12/15, RT-MME-117448-02 PRE-DEVELOPMENT
ARBORICULTURAL SURVEY DATED AUGUST 2014, RT-MME-117449-02
PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT DATED AUGUST 2014, RT-MME117449-02-02 DAYTIME BAT SURVEY DATED AUGUST 2014, RT-MME-119254-03
NOCTURNAL AND DAWN BAT SURVEYS DATED JUNE 2015, RT-MME-119254-04
NOCTURNAL EMERGENCE AND DAWN RE-ENTRY BAT SURVEYS DATED
SEPTEMBER 2015, SB-MME-120335 BAT SURVEY AND LICENCE APPLICATION
DATED JULY 2015, CDR-A-J-00-X07 REV.01 Statement of Community Involvement
dated 12/01/16, CDR-A-L-20-001 REV 3 GA PLANS - GROUND FLOOR, CDR-A-L-20101 REV 3 GA PLANS - FIRST FLOOR
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
128
CEDARS MANOR SCHOOL, WHITTLESEA ROAD, HARROW
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
129
SECTION 2 - OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR GRANT
ITEM NO:
2/01
ADDRESS:
KIRKFIELD HOUSE, 118 STATION ROAD, HARROW
REFERENCE:
P/5862/15
DESCRIPTION:
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADDITIONAL FLOORS TO PROVIDE
EIGHT FLATS; BIN / CYCLE STORAGE (DEMOLITION OF
EXISTING THIRD FLOOR)
WARD:
HARROW ON THE HILL
APPLICANT:
SAV GROUP
AGENT:
CITY PLANNING LTD
CASE OFFICER:
JUSTINE MAHANGA
EXPIRY DATE:
24/02/2015
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT permission subject to authority being delegated to the Divisional Director of
Regeneration and Planning in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance
Services for the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and issue of the planning
permission and subject to minor amendments to the conditions or the legal agreement.
The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:
i)
The payment of £500 to alter the Controlled Parking Zone boundary to specifically
exclude Kirkfield House from any Controlled Parking Zone.
ii)
Legal Fees: Payment of Harrow Council‟s reasonable costs in the preparation of
the legal agreement.
REASON
The proposed scheme seeks to provide 8 residential units within a two-storey extension
to the existing property. The proposed residential units would contribute to a strategically
important part of the housing stock of the borough, in accordance with paragraph 3.55 of
the London Plan (2015). Furthermore, the proposed development would have a
satisfactory impact on the character of the area, the amenities of existing neighbouring
occupiers and future occupiers of the development.
The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the
National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the policies and proposals in The London
Plan (2015), the Harrow Core Strategy 2012 and the Harrow Development Management
Plan Policies (2013), and to all relevant material considerations, and any comments
received in response to publicity and consultation.
RECOMMENDATION B
That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 15th June 2016 or as such
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
130
extended period as may be agreed by the Divisional Director of Regeneration,
Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, then it
is recommended to delegate the decision to REFUSE planning permission to the
Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning on the grounds that:
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure the required
alteration to the boundary of the surrounding Controlled Parking Zone to, would fail to
adequately mitigate the impact of the development on the adjoining residential streets
contrary to DM 1, DM42 and DM46 of the Harrow Development Management Policies
Local Plan (2013).
INFORMATION:
This application is reported to Planning Committee as it would provide in excess of 6
residential units. The application is therefore referred to the Planning Committee as it is
it does fall within any of the provisions set out at paragraphs 1(a) – 1(h) of the Scheme
of Delegation dated 29 May 2013.
Statutory Return Type: 18: Minor Development
Council Interest: None
Net Additional Floorspace: 835.50sqm
GLA Community Infrastructure (CIL) Contribution: £29,242.50
Harrow Community Infrastructure (CIL) Contribution: £91,905.00
Site Description
 The subject site is located on the corner of Station Road and Woodlands Road.
 The site is occupied by Kirkfield House, a part three storey / part four storey
commercial building.
 The application site forms part of the Wickes building, which includes 120-138
Station Road.
 The ground, first and second floors of the application property benefit from prior
approval (P/2980/15) to convert into 45 self-contained units. The conversion of these
floors has commenced.
 The existing building is a red brick building with large aluminium windows and small
roof extension on the corner of Station Road and Woodlands Road.
 Car parking is provided at the rear of the site.
 The site is not located within the setting or a listed building, nor is it within a
conservation area.
 Station Road is predominately characterised by commercial development.
 The properties to the rear of the site along Woodlands Road are generally two-storey
semi-detached dwellings.
 The site and surrounding area are located within the Station Road sub-area of
Harrow Town Centre.
Proposal Details
 Demolition of third floor level, which consists of 37sqm of office space and a plant
room and storage area.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
131












Construction of a two-storey extension atop of the existing building to provide 8 selfcontained flats.
The proposed third floor would extend vertically from the lower levels. This level
would be constructed in brickwork to match the lower levels and would include
recessed winter balconies / roof terraces.
The third floor would comprise 5 residential units.
A metal clad mansard style roof extension would be constructed at fourth floor. This
floor would be set back 1.8m from the lower levels (Station Road and Woodlands
Road elevations).
The fourth floor would provide 3 residential units:
Each unit would include private amenity space in the form of winter gardens / roof
terrace with obscured glazed screening.
18 cycle parks would serve the new residential units within a cycle shelter, located
within the rear car parking area.
Refuse storage would be provided within a communal bin store in the rear car
parking area.
No internal alterations are proposed to the lower levels of the existing building as part
of this application.
It is proposed to alter the top section of the front bay over the entrance by extending
it in matching aluminium panels to create a base for the third floor terrace at first and
second floors.
It is proposed to stain the existing building and proposed third floor brickwork.
Materials also include zinc coated metal cladding (fourth floor) and aluminium
windows.
Relevant History
P/2980/15
Prior approval: Conversion of offices at ground, first and second floors only to 45 selfcontained flats (Class C3).
Granted: 10/09/2015
P/2908/15
Prior approval: Conversion of offices to 47 self-contained flats.
Granted: 10/09/2015
P/4890/14
Prior approval: Conversion of offices to 22 self-contained flats.
Granted: 30/01/15
P/0580/08DAD
Internally illuminated, double sided, free standing advertisement panel
Granted: 04/04/2015
P/4418/15
Enclosure of undercroft for use as plant and store rooms
Granted: 16/11/2015
P/5406/15
Replacement entrance doors with integrated post boxes and video entry system;
replacement windows; replacement of rear entrance door with window
Granted: 15/01/16
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
132
Pre-Application Discussion (Ref: P/4049/15/PREAPP)
 The principle of replacing the existing third floor office space with two floors of
residential units is acceptable.
 Proposed design option 1 preferred.
 The corner of the proposed third floor should be brought in line with the lower levels.
 Any recladding of the existing building should complement the character and
appearance of the adjoining terrace (no.118-138 Station Road).
Applicant Submission Documents
 Design and Access Statement;
 Daylight and Sunlight Report;
 Planning Statement;
 Technical Report;
 Energy Statement;
 Noise Assessment Report;
 Proposal Plans.
Consultations
 Highways Authority (Parking): Object on highways grounds due to the impacts on the
Controlled Parking Zone [CPZ]. Suggested entering a legal agreement to alter the
CPZ boundary to specifically exclude Kirkfield House from any CPZ.
 Drainage Engineer: Recommended conditions of approval.
Site Notice:
Posted: 1/12/2015
Notifications
Sent: 10
Replies: 2
Expiry: 20/01/2016
Summary of Comments;
 The application to raise the roof line will impact on the light and view to the property
opposite in Woodlands Court.
APPRAISAL
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:
„If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to
be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with
the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
The Government has issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which
consolidates national planning policy and is a material consideration in the determination
of this application.
In this instance, the Development Plan comprises The London Plan (consolidated with
alterations since 2011)(2015) and the Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
133
comprises The Harrow Core Strategy 2012, Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan
(AAP) 2013, the Development Management Policies Local Plan (DMP) 2013, the Site
Allocations Local Plan (SALP) 2013 and Harrow Local Area Map (LAP) 2013.
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of Development
Character and Appearance of the Area
Residential Amenity
Accessibility
Traffic and Parking
Flood Risk and Drainage
Equalities
S17 Crime & Disorder Act 1998
Consultation Response
Principle of Development
The application site is located within the Station Road subarea of the Harrow
Metropolitan Town Centre and is identified as an intensification area as set out in the
Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and the London Plan (2015). The detailed area plan is set
out in the adopted Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (AAP)(2015) and therefore,
any development within this area will be considered against the policies contained within
AAP alongside the adopted Development Management Polices Plan (DMP)(2013).
The ground, first and second floors of the application site benefit from prior approval
(P/2980/15) to convert the office floorspace into 45 residential units. A site visit
undertaken 21 January 2016 indicated that the use of these floors as office has ceased
and the proposed works associated with the conversion to residential units has
commenced on site.
The lawful use of the existing third floor of the property is office (Class B1). Specifically,
this floor provides 37 sqm of office floorspace and a 42sqm plant / lift motor room. While
prior approval has also been granted to convert this space to residential, the proposal
intends to demolish this floor to enable the two-storey extension.
The Harrow Core Strategy states that there is capacity within the Intensification Area to
accommodate a substantial portion of the borough‟s future housing needs through
higher density residential and mixed-use development. Notwithstanding this, any
proposal which results in the loss of office floorspace would need to be assessed
against, policy AAP16 (D) of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan which states
the following:
Minor proposals for the redevelopment or change of use of offices of less than 1,000
sqm of floorspace within Harrow town centre will be permitted where:
a) The building is no longer fit for office occupation having regard to the age and
condition of the building, potential for refurbishment and the needs of potential occupiers
in the local office market;
b) The office vacancy rate in Harrow Town Centre has exceeded 20% for a continuous
period of at least 12 months;
c) The office space has been appropriately markets for a period of at least 12 months
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
134
without success; and,
d) The proposal contributes to the continued vitality of the Metropolitan centre.
Although it is acknowledged that the proposal may not be able to satisfy criteria b and c
of policy AAP16, on balance the loss of the third floor office space is considered
acceptable. Specifically, following the change of use of the lower floors, the building
would only provide approximately 38 sqm of office floor space and 68.6sqm of ancillary
office space (plant / lift room) at third floor level. Furthermore, it is noted that the existing
lift does not provide access to this floor. Instead access is obtained via a narrow internal
stairwell from the second floor. In this respect, should the third floor office floorspace be
retained, access to this area would be gained through the ground floor residential
entrance and via the second floor units. This relationship is likely to be functionally
irreparable and the viability of the office space on the third floor being viable use in the
short, medium or long-term is low.
Accordingly, the scale and location of the third floor office floor space, within what would
be a predominately residential development, is not considered to contribute to the
continued vitality of the metropolitan center, nor would it meet the requirements of
potential occupiers within the local office market. In this context, the LPA raise no
objections in principle to the loss of the existing third floor office floorspace. Furthermore,
the proposal to introduce residential units at the application site accords with the Harrow
Core Strategy and Area Action Plan which identifies that there is capacity within the
Intensification Area to accommodate a substantial portion of the borough‟s future
housing needs through higher density residential development.
Notwithstanding this, while the proposal to demolish the existing third floor to introduce
two additional floors of residential units is considered acceptable in principle, this is
subject to compliance with the Area Action Plan, relevant development plan policies and
supplementary planning guidance which seeks to protect surrounding amenity and
provide high quality residential development.
Character and Appearance of the Area
Policy 7.4 (B) of the London Plan requires that buildings, streets and open spaces
should provide a high quality design response that has regard to the pattern and grain of
the existing spaces and streets in orientation, scale, proportion and mass.
Core Policy CS1.B specifies that „All development shall respond positively to the local
and historic context in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce the positive
attributes of local distinctiveness whilst promoting innovative design and/or enhancing
areas of poor design; extensions should respect their host building.‟
Policies AAP1 and AAP4 of the AAP seeks to a high standard of development within the
Harrow Town Centre and throughout the Heart of Harrow. Policy AAP1 states that
development within all three sub areas of Harrow town centre will be required to
strengthen its character, legibility and role as a Metropolitan Centre.
Surrounding development on Station Road is predominately commercial at ground floor,
with residential and office use above. The surrounding area does not include any
significant commonality of design, with building heights ranging from 3-6 storeys.
Development to the rear of the site, on Woodlands Road is characterised by two-storey
Victorian semi-detached houses and a four-storey flatted development.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
135
Notwithstanding the mixed character of Station Road, the application site forms part of
the Wickes building, a part three / part four storey building which extends from the corner
of Station Road / Woodlands Road to the corner of Station Road / Elmgrove Road (118138 Station Road). This adjoining building is three-storey red brick building with large
aluminium windows and an inset mansard roof extension on the corner of Elmgrove
Road. Due to the slope of Station Road, which falls from south to north, the principle
roofline of the application premises is approximately 1.5m lower than the opposite end of
the terrace (excluding roof extensions).
The scale of the proposed third floor is considered to be proportionate to the site and the
surrounding scale of the development. Specifically, the proposed third floor, which would
extend vertically from the lower levels in brickwork to match, would appropriately form
part of the streetscene of Station Road in terms of massing and scale. While the
proposed third floor would extend marginally higher than the roofline of the adjacent
property, this difference in height would not be overly discernible from the streetscene. In
any event, due to the change in ground level, presence of roof extensions and a stepped
parapet within the adjoining building, the Wickes building (no.113-138) does not
currently include a uniform building height. A further variation to the building height is
therefore accepted. The design approach of extending the brickwork façade is
considered to satisfactorily relate to the appearance of the application premises and the
adjoining terrace. The recessed balconies atop of the existing bay projections are a
successful design element of the proposed extension.
The design of the extension also ensures that the proposed fourth floor appears as a
subservient addition. Specifically, while the lower levels would be constructed of
brickwork, the proposed fourth floor would be constructed as a metal clad mansard to
distinguish from the lower levels. The footprint has been set back approximately 1.8m
from the Station Road and Woodlands Road building elevations and 5.4m at the rear of
the building. In this context, the proposed fourth floor would appear as a recessive
element which would not dominate the appearance of the building within the
streetscene. The reduced prominence of the fourth floor, in urban design terms, is
considered to be an appropriate mechanism to address the prominent corner location of
the site.
In terms of materials, the principle external material of brick would be extended to create
the new third floor façade. The brick would then be jet washed and treated with a red
stain matching the existing colour to create a uniform finish between the old and new
materials. The mansard roof extension would be finished in dark grey zinc coated metal
cladding to the principal street fronting elevations. The use of metal cladding and
aluminium windows are in keeping with the application premises and adjoining terrace.
Samples of the proposed materials have been submitted as part of this application and
are considered to be acceptable.
The proposed minor alteration to the external appearance of the front bay window is
acceptable in design terms.
Residential Amenity
Policy 7.6B, subsection D, of The London Plan (2015) states that new buildings and
structures should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and
buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
136
and microclimate.
There are no specific policies within the AAP which deal with safeguarding residential
amenity but eludes that development proposals would be required to meet policy DM1 of
the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), which seeks to ensure that
“proposals that would be detrimental to the privacy and amenity of neighbouring
occupiers, or that would fail to achieve satisfactory privacy and amenity for future
occupiers of the development, will be resisted”.
Impact of the development on Neighbouring Amenity
The proposed development would introduce 8 residential units to the existing building. It
is likely that up to a maximum of 34 people would occupy the 8 flats. It is acknowledged
that the conversion of the lower floors to residential units is currently underway at the
premises. Accordingly, while the residential nature of the property would remain, the
proposed extension would increase the amount of comings and goings from the site and
as such, would increase the use and intensity of the property. However, given the mixed
character of the surrounding area and also the location of the site within the town centre,
it is considered that the proposed development would not unacceptably exacerbate any
existing levels of noise and disturbance experienced within the area. In this respect, any
potential amenity impacts of the proposed development would be limited to the scale
and siting of the proposed extension.
While the proposed third floor would extend vertically from the lower levels, the proposed
fourth floor would be setback from the front and rear building lines. Accordingly, while
the proposal would increase the maximum height of the existing building by
approximately 3.5m, the footprint of the building would remain unchanged.
The new roofline would sit half a storey higher than the roofline of this adjoining property
(no. 120-138 Station Road). Notwithstanding this, as the proposed extension would not
extend beyond the established front and rear building elevations of this neighbour and
also considering the commercial use of this property, no amenity issues are raised.
Woodlands Road is a residential cul-de-sac that runs along the northern boundary of the
site and leads to a number of two-storey semi-detached dwellings. A rear car parking
area and distance of 14.3m separates the rear elevation of the application premises from
the closest residential property on Woodlands Road. Given this distance, the additional
storeys and associated rear facing windows and roof terrace would not result in an
undue loss of light or privacy to the occupiers of this property. Given the acceptable
design of the extension, no loss of visual amenity would result.
While the proposal would result in additional front elevation windows, the separation
provided by Station Road and Woodlands Road ensures that no undue harm would be
experienced by surrounding residential developments in terms of overlooking.
Specifically, Woodlands Court to the north, would be located approximately 8.0m from
the application premises, while a distance of 11.0m separated the application premises
from the upper floor residential units on the opposite side of Station Road.
The applicant has provided a Daylight and Sunlight report prepared by Model
Environments in support of the proposed development. This report concludes that
daylight and sunlight levels would be maintained at all of the neighbouring buildings, in
accordance with BRE guidelines. The methodology and results have been reviewed are
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
137
considered to be fair.
Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would not unacceptably
harm the amenities of surrounding occupiers through a loss of light, privacy, overlooking
or perception of overlooking and would therefore would accord with the aims and
objectives of policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan (2015), Core Policy CS1B of
the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management
Policies Plan (2013), and the adopted SPD: Residential Design Guide (2010).
Future Occupiers
Room Size and Layout
Policy 3.5C of The London Plan requires all new residential development to provide,
amongst other things, accommodation which is adequate to meet people‟s needs. In this
regard, minimum gross internal areas (GIA) are required for different types of
accommodation, and new residential accommodation should have a layout that provides
a functional space. Table 3.3 of The London Plan specifies minimum GIAs for residential
units and advises that these minimum sizes should be exceeded where possible. The
use of these residential unit GIA‟s as minima is also reiterated in Appendix 1 of the
Residential Design Guide SPD. This is supported by policy DM1 of the DMP and policy
AAP13 of the AAP. Further detailed room standards are set out in the Mayors Housing
Supplementary Planning Guidance 2012.
On 25 March 2015 through a written ministerial statement, the Government introduced
new technical housing standards in England and detailed how these would be applied
through planning policy.
The national standards came into effect on 1st October and therefore an application
submitted at this site would be considered against the new national standards instead of
the current London Plan standards. Furthermore, the imposition of any conditions
requiring compliance with specific policy standards relating to new housing would need
to be considered against the national standards.
These standards came into effect on the 1st of October 2015. From this date relevant
London Plan policy and associated guidance in the Housing Supplementary Planning
Guidance (SPG) should be interpreted by reference to the nearest equivalent new
national technical standard. The Mayor intends to adopt the new standards through a
minor alteration to the London Plan. In the interim the Housing Standards Policy
Transition Statement (October 2015) should be applied in assessing new housing
development proposals. This is also set out in the draft Interim Housing SPG.
Therefore from October 2015, policy 3.2 (c) requires that table 3.3 to be substituted with
Table 1 of the nationally described space standards, which is set out in the table below.
Policy 3.8 (c) of the London Plan relating to Housing Choice, from the 1 October should
be interpreted as 90% of homes should meeting building regulations M4 (2) –
„accessible and adopted dwellings‟. Policy 3.8 (d) will require 10% of new housing to
meeting building regulations M4 93) – „wheelchair user dwellings‟.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
138
Bedrooms
1b
Bed
spaces
1p
2p
2b
3p
4p
3b
4p
5p
6p
4b
5p
6p
7p
8p
5b
6p
7p
8p
6b
7p
8p
*Where a studio has a
from
39sqm to 37 sqm.
Minimum GIA (sqm)
Built – in
storage (sqm)
1 storey
2 storey
3 storey
dwellings
dwellings
dwellings
39 (37) *
1.0
50
58
1.5
61
70
2.0
70
79
74
84
90
2.5
86
93
99
95
102
108
90
97
103
3.0
99
106
112
108
115
121
117
124
130
103
110
116
3.5
112
119
125
121
128
134
116
123
129
4.0
125
132
138
shower room instead of a bathroom, the floor area may be reduced
Proposed Flats
Flat 1 (4 bedroom, 6 person)
Flat 2 (2 bedroom, 4 person)
Flat 3 (one bedroom, 2 person)
Flat 4 (one bedroom, 2 person)
Flat 5 (two bedroom, 4 person)
Flat 6 (two bedroom, 4 person)
Flat 7 (three bedroom, 6 person)
Flat 8 (three bedroom, 6 person)
Gross Internal floor Area
123qm (99sqm)
109sqm (70sqm)
55sqm (50sqm)
59sqm (50sqm)
71sqm (70sqm)
74sqm (70sqm)
100sqm (95sqm)
106sqm (95sqm)
As demonstrated within the above table, the proposed flats exceed the minimum
floorspace standards as required by national housing standards. Each flat would also
meet the requirements for built in storage.
The layout and outlook of the units is considered to be appropriate and would provide
adequately lit units, five of which would be dual-aspect. A Daylight & Sunlight analysis
provided in support of the proposed development confirms that all of the habitable room
within the proposal exhibited daylight level which met or exceeded recommended levels
(BRE standards). Each of the proposed units would also be served by private amenity
space in the form of roof terraces / winter balconies. The level of amenity space
provided, in most cases, significantly exceeds the 5sqm per unit required by the London
Plan.
A Noise Survey and Assessment Report, prepared by paceconsult, has also confirmed
that while the site is affected by road traffic noise from Station Road, the ambient noise
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
139
levels are expected to be complaint with the World Health Organisation guidance.
Access to the proposed third and fourth floor would be taken via the existing access on
the corner of Woodlands Road and Station Road. A lift and internal stairwell would
provide access from ground floor.
Despite some minor conflicts identified between the horizontal and vertical stacking of
the units, on balance, the layout of the proposed additional floors is considered to
provide an acceptable level of accommodation for the future occupiers of the property.
Furthermore, given the lower floors are currently in the process of being converted into
45 residential units under prior approval scheme P/2980/15, there is no conflict identified
between the existing building and proposed additional residential units.
Given the above, it is considered that the proposal would have no significant adverse
implications for host and neighbouring residential amenities, and would accord with
policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan (consolidated with alterations since
2011)(2015), policies DM1 and DM30 of the DMP and the Council‟s adopted
Supplementary Planning Document „Residential Design Guide (2010)‟ in that respect.
Accessibility
Policy DM2 of the DMP and policies 3.5 and 3.8 of The London Plan (consolidated with
alterations since 2011)(2015) seek to ensure that all new housing is built to „Lifetime
Homes‟ standards. Furthermore, The London Plan policy 7.2 requires all future
development to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion.
Policy CS1.K of the Harrow Core Strategy requires all new dwellings to comply with the
requirements of Lifetime Homes. Supplementary Planning Document Accessible Homes
2010 (SPD) outlines the necessary criteria for a „Lifetime Home‟.
In addition to the above, Policy DM30 of the DMP (2013) which relates to houses of
multiple occupation, requires that they accord with Accessible Homes Standards and
provide satisfactory living conditions for the intended occupiers.
While the above policies require compliance with Lifetime Home Standards, in October
2015 these standards were replaced by New National Standards which require 90% of
homes to meet Building regulation M4 (2) - „accessible and adaptable dwellings‟.
The applicant has indicated that the existing main entrance to the building on Station
Road and Woodlands Road is compliant with wheelchair requirements with step free
access via the car part at the rear. The proposed residential units share the existing stair
and lift that will be extended to serve the proposed floors. The applicant has also
indicated that the lift is to comply with Part M of the Building Regulations.
In line with the London Plan requirements, the proposal plans indicate that proposed flat
4 is compliant with both the Mayor of London Wheelchair Standard Housing Design
Guide and the Category 3 dwellings from Part M of the Building Regulations (adopted
October 2015).
Notwithstanding this, a condition of approval is required to ensure that the proposed
development would meet regulation M4 (2) of the building Regulations which would
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
140
secure an appropriate standard for future occupiers and make the units accessible to all.
Accordingly, subject to compliance with this condition, it is considered that the proposed
accommodation would be satisfactory and as such would comply with policy 3.5 of The
London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011)(2015), standard 5.4.1 of the
Housing SPG (2012).
Traffic and Parking
Access Arrangements, Parking and Cycle Provision
Policy AAP 19 of the AAP also seeks to limit on site car parking and development
proposals to support the use of sustainable modes of transport, in particular in areas that
have a high level of public transport accessibility.
The application site is located within an area with a PTAL (Public transport Accessibility
Level) of 5, which is considered to be a good level of accessibility to public transport
nodes and community facilities. Notwithstanding this, the surrounding area includes
extensive parking controls.
The car parking area to the east of the building originally consisted of 43 parking spaces.
The applicant has however indicated that 13 of the 43 existing car parking spaces are
allocated to Fitzgerald House (located on Elmgrove Road). Accordingly, the existing
office building at the application premises has a provision of 30 parking spaces. There is
an existing vehicular access from Woodlands Road and two pedestrian entrances, from
the car park at the rear of the site and also from Station Road.
Furthermore, as part of the proposed development, a further 10 spaces would be lost
due to the provision of cycle parking and waste storage in the rear parking area.
Specifically, a refuse / recycling shelter for the building (53 units) would remove 4
parking spaces, while the provision of cycle parking would require the removal of 6
spaces. In this context, a total of 20 spaces would serve the 53 units (0.38 spaces per
dwelling), 3 of which would be wheelchair accessible spaces.
The Council‟s Highways officer has raised concerns in regards to the increase in
residential units and subsequent decrease in parking proposed within this application
and the impacts this would have on parking on Woodlands Road. Specifically, the
previous permission (prior approval) was not permit restricted as the parking provision
was considered acceptable for the number of flats proposed (30 spaces for 45 units). As
a result, a condition was not imposed to this permission restricted occupiers from
applying for parking permits. Accordingly, all residents of this development are entitled to
apply for permits to park on Woodlands Road.
However, due to the additional 8 units proposed within this application and the loss of 10
parking spaces, the remaining provision of 20 spaces to serve the 53 units has the
potential to place an unacceptable pressure on the controlled parking zone on
Woodlands Road; which is currently well over capacity. A condition restricting the
occupiers of the proposed 8 units from applying for permits to park on Woodlands Road
is not considered to be sufficient in addressing this concern. As such, the applicant has
agreed to undertake a legal agreement to alter the CPZ boundary to specifically exclude
Kirkfield House from any CPZ, therefore making all dwellings of the development
ineligible for permits.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
141
18 cycle spaces are proposed to serve the eight residential units. This is in addition to
the 46 cycle parking spaces approved under prior approval application P/2980/15 which
granted approval for 45 units. Accordingly, a total of 64 cycle parks would be provided in
the rear parking area. This provision accords with current London Plan standards. The
proposed location and storage of the cycles is acceptable.
Refuse Arrangements
Refuse and recycling storage for the proposed flats would be provided to the rear of the
building. Specifically, there would be 9 bins provided to serve the 8 units proposed within
this application and the 44 units granted under prior approval on the lower levels (53
units total). The applicant has indicated that the proposed bins would provide storage for
4400litres of waste and 5120litres of recycling, in line with the British Standards Waste
Management in Buildings.
The refuse / recycling storage would be located at the rear of the building, within a 4.9m
x 10m enclosed shelter. The shelter would be constructed of brick to match the building.
The proposed bin store arrangements accords with Department for Transport guidance
but falls marginally short of the Council‟s Refuse Code of Practice which encourages bin
placement to be within 10m of the point of pick-up (the bin store would be approximately
13-16m from the pick-up point). However, given the marginal difference, the absence of
any adopted planning policies relating to such standards and the fact that the bin stores
would accord with national guidance, it is considered that a refusal on the basis of such
a marginal breach of local refuse standards would be unreasonable. A condition of
development would ensure that the bins are kept in the designated stores which would
ensure that there would be no adverse impacts on the amenities of neighbouring
occupiers of the character of the area.
Flood Risk & Drainage
The application site is located within flood risk zone 1 in accordance with the
Environment Agency Flood Risk Zone Map. The site is also identified as a critical
drainage area of Harrow. As the proposed development would not lead to an increase in
impermeable surface area, no issues would arise in this respect.
Equalities
Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 created the public sector equality duty.
Section149 states:(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need
to:
(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is
prohibited by or under this Act;
(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic and persons who do not share it;
(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic
and persons who do not share it.
When making policy decisions, the Council must take account of the equality duty and in
particular any potential impact on protected groups. It is not considered that there are
any equality impacts as part of this application.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
142
S17 Crime & Disorder Act 1998
It is considered that the proposed new build would not adversely impact upon community
safety issues and as such, would comply with policy 7.3 of The London Plan (2015) or
Policy DM2 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
Consultation Responses
The application to raise the roof line will impact on the light and view to the property
opposite in Woodlands Court.
Please refer to section 2 of this report for comment. The proposed extension of the
building is not considered to result in an undue harm to surrounding residential
properties in terms of loss of light or outlook. The applicant has also submitted a Sunlight
& Daylight Analysis confirming the proposal meets BRE Standards.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed scheme for 8 residential units would contribute to a
strategically important part of the housing stock of the borough, in accordance with
paragraph 3.55 of the London Plan (2015). Furthermore, the proposed development
would have a satisfactory impact on the character of the area, the amenities of existing
neighbouring occupiers and future occupiers of the development.
For these reasons, weighing up the development plan policies and proposals, and other
material considerations including comments received in response to notification and
consultation as set out above, this application is recommended for grant.
CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission.
REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following documents and plans:
2_PL001; 2_PL010 C; 2_PL011 A; 2_PL012 A; 2_PL040 B; 2_PL041 B; 2_PL070 B;
2_PL071 B; 2_PL072 B; 2_PL100 B; 2_PL110 C; 2_PL111 C; 2_PL112 G; 2_PL113 B;
2_PL140 C; 2_PL141 B; 2_PL170 C; 2_PL171 C; 2_PL172 C; 2_PL550; 2_PL551;
Daylight & Sunlight Report; Noise Survey and Assessment Report; Design & Access
Statement; Planning Statement; Technical Report; Energy Statement.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 The refuse and waste bins shall be stored at all times, other than on collection days,
within the designated refuse storage areas as shown on the approved plans.
REASON: To enhance the appearance of the development and safeguard the character
and appearance of the area, in accordance with policies 7.4.B of The London Plan
(consolidated with alterations since 2011)(2015) and policy DM1 of The Development
Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
4 The development hereby permitted shall be constructed to the specifications of: “Part
M, M4 (2), Category 2: Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings” of the Building Regulations
2013 and thereafter retained in that form.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
143
REASON: To ensure that the development is capable of meeting „Accessible and
Adaptable Dwellings‟ standards in accordance with policies 3.5 and 3.8 of The London
Plan, policy CS1.K of The Harrow Core Strategy 2012 and policies DM1 and DM2 of the
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
INFORMATIVES:
1 INFORMATIVE:
The following national, regional and local planning policies and guidance are relevant to
this decision:
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
The London Plan (2015):
Policies 3.1, 3.5, 3.8, 3.12, 5.1,5.2, 5.3, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12, 6.3, 6.9, 6.13, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3,
7.4, 7.6, 7.8, 7.15
The Harrow Core Strategy (2012)
Core Policies CS1
Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan (2013)
AAP1, AAP2, AAP4, AAP8, AAP9, AAP13, AAP16, AAP17, AAP18, AAP19, AAP20
Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013)
Policies DM1, DM2, DM10, DM24, DM27, DM31, DM42, DM45.
Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Design Guide (2010)
Supplementary Planning Document – Accessible Homes (2010)
Supplementary Planning Document – Access for All (2006)
Code of Practice for Storage and Collection of Refuse and Materials for Recycling in
Domestic Properties (2008).
Housing: Supplementary Planning Guidance (2012)
2 INFORM_PF2
Grant with pre-application advice
Statement under Article 31 (1)(cc) of The Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended)
This decision has been taken in accordance with paragraphs 187-189 of The National
Planning Policy Framework. Harrow Council has a pre-application advice service and
actively encourages applicants to use this service. Please note this for future reference
prior to submitting any future planning applications.
3 INFORMATIVE:
Please be advised that this application attracts a liability payment of £20,303.50 of
Community Infrastructure Levy. This charge has been levied under Greater London
Authority CIL charging schedule and s211 of the Planning Act 2008.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
144
Harrow Council as CIL collecting authority upon the grant of planning permission will be
collecting the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Your proposal is subject to a
CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £29,242.50 for the application, based on the levy
rate for Harrow of £35/sqm and the residential floor area of 835.50sq.m.
4 Harrow CIL
Harrow has a Community Infrastructure Levy which will apply Borough wide for certain
uses of over 100sqm gross internal floor space. The CIL has been examined by the
Planning Inspectorate and found to be legally compliant. It will be charged from the 1st
October 2013. Any planning application determined after this date will be charged
accordingly.
Harrow's Charges are:
Residential (Use Class C3) - £110 per sqm;
Hotels (Use Class C1), Residential Institutions except Hospitals, (Use Class C2),
Student Accommodation, Hostels and HMOs (Sui generis)- £55 per sqm;
Retail (Use Class A1), Financial & Professional Services (Use Class A2), Restaurants
and Cafes (Use Class A3) Drinking Establishments (Use Class A4) Hot Food
Takeaways (Use Class A5) - £100 per sqm
All other uses - Nil.
The Harrow CIL Liability for this development is: £91,905.00
5 IMPORTANT: Compliance With Planning Conditions Requiring Submission and
Approval of Details Before Development Commences
- You will be in breach of planning permission if you start development without complying
with a condition requiring you to do something before you start. For example, that a
scheme or details of the development must first be approved by the Local Planning
Authority.
- Carrying out works in breach of such a condition will not satisfy the requirement to
commence the development within the time permitted.
- Beginning development in breach of a planning condition will invalidate your planning
permission.
- If you require confirmation as to whether the works you have carried out are
acceptable, then you should apply to the Local Planning Authority for a certificate of
lawfulness.
6 CONSIDERATE CONTRACTOR CODE OF PRACTICE
The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements in the attached Considerate
Contractor Code of Practice, in the interests of minimising any adverse effects arising
from building operations, and in particular the limitations on hours of working
7 PARTY WALL ACT:
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify and obtain formal
agreement from adjoining owner(s) where the building owner intends to carry out
building
work which involves:
1. work on an existing wall shared with another property;
2. building on the boundary with a neighbouring property;
3. excavating near a neighbouring building,
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
145
and that work falls within the scope of the Act.
Procedures under this Act are quite separate from the need for planning permission or
building regulations approval.
“The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: Explanatory booklet” is available free of charge from:
Communities and Local Government Publications, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB
Please quote Product code: 02 BR 00862 when ordering
Also available for download from the CLG website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/133214.pdf
Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237
Textphone: 0870 1207 405
E-mail: communities@twoten.com
8 REMOVE YELLOW SITE NOTICE
Plan Nos: 2_PL001; 2_PL010 C; 2_PL011 A; 2_PL012 A; 2_PL040 B; 2_PL041 B;
2_PL070 B; 2_PL071 B; 2_PL072 B; 2_PL100 B; 2_PL110 C; 2_PL111 C; 2_PL112 G;
2_PL113 B; 2_PL140 C; 2_PL141 B; 2_PL170 C; 2_PL171 C; 2_PL172 C; 2_PL550;
2_PL551; Daylight & Sunlight Report; Noise Survey and Assessment Report; Design &
Access Statement; Planning Statement; Technical Report; Energy Statement.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
146
KIRKFIELD HOUSE, 118 STATION ROAD, HARROW
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
147
ITEM NO:
2/02
ADDRESS:
GARAGES ADJACENT 209 THE HEIGHTS, NORTHOLT
REFERENCE:
P/5917/15
DESCRIPTION:
RE-DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE A THREE STOREY BUILDING
FOR THREE FLATS WITH COVERED LINK TO ADJOINING
BUILDING; RE-SURFACING OF EXISTING ACCESS CAR
PARKING BIN / CYCLE STORAGE AND LANDSCAPING
WARD:
ROXETH
APPLICANT:
HARROW COUNCIL
AGENT:
INGLETON WOOD
CASE OFFICER:
CATRIONA COOKE
EXPIRY DATE:
02/03/2016
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT planning permission subject to conditions
INFORMATION
The application is reported to the Planning Committee as the subject site is owned by the
Council and is over 100sqm in area. As such, it falls outside the scope of the exception
criteria set out at Part 1(h) of the Scheme of Delegation dated 29th May 2013.
Statutory Return Type: E13 Minor Dwellings
Council Interest: The land is owned by the Council.
Net additional Floor space: 265.5 sqm
GLA Community Infrastructure Levy Contribution (provisional): £9,310
Harrow Community Infrastructure Levy Contribution (provisional): £29,260
Site Description
 The application site consists of four garages attached to an existing three storey block
of flats.
 The site is set at 90 degrees to the adjoining neighbour 299 the Heights (to the east)
 The site has a PTAL rating of 1b.
Proposal Details
 Redevelopment to provide a three storey building with a covered link to the existing flat
development to provide three flats.
 The proposed extension would set back 3m from the front elevation of the existing flat
development.
Revisions to Previous Application
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
148

N/A
Relevant History
 N/A
Applicant Submission Documents
 Design and Access Statement
Consultations
Highways Authority: We have no objection to the principle of the development. There are
no highway safety concerns.
Drainage Engineer: No objection subject to conditions.
Landscape Architect: No comments received
Advertisement
 N/A
Notifications
Sent:
11
Replies: 1
Expiry: 08/02/2016
Site Notice
Erected: 22/01/2016
Expiry: 12/02/2016
Addresses Consulted
199, 201, 203, 205, 207, 208, 209, 211, 213, 215, 217 The Heights
Summary of Responses
 Very extensive development for a very small plot of land, height and width of the new
block eats into the open space that is at the bend of the highway.
 The garages are small and single storey and do not produce this urban and terracing
effect.
 Intensification of use to the small plot with more vehicles (residents, visitors recycling,
waste disposal and deliveries) than what is currently enjoyed by the existing block.
 Access and parking to our business might be impeded if new residents and their
visitors do not keep to their section of parking and over spill into our parking spaces or
use our areas for turning and long/short term parking.
APPRAISAL
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:
„If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to be
made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
The Government has issued the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] which
consolidates national planning policy and is a material consideration in the determination
of this application.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
149
In this instance, the development plan comprises the London Plan 2015 [LP]
(consolidated with alterations since 2011) (2015) and the Local Development Framework
[LDF]. The LDF comprises The Harrow Core Strategy 2012 [CS], Harrow and Wealdstone
Area Action Plan 2013 [AAP], the Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013
[DMP], the Site Allocations Local Plan [SALP] 2013 and Harrow Local Area Map 2013
[LAM].
BACKGROUND
Homes for Harrow development programme
Demand for affordable housing to rent and buy in Harrow is high and growing. The council
now has around 150 families housed in temporary Bed and Breakfast accommodation
when a few years ago there were none. The council‟s Housing Service now has the
financial freedom to start building new council housing and the Homes for Harrow
programme has identified a number of opportunities where we can start building the first
new council homes in a generation.
The Council commissioned a capacity study to identify opportunities to build new homes
within existing council housing estates, disused and dysfunctional garages, (often the
cause of anti-social behavior) and other areas of in-fill development. This work was
carried out in consultation with the Harrow Federation of Tenant and Resident
Associations and Councilors and with other council services.
A number of opportunities have been identified. The first phase of 13 sites will deliver 40
new Affordable homes for rent including large family houses which are in extremely short
supply, as well as 10 new Shared Ownership homes also aimed at families. Planning
applications have been worked up following resident consultation on each site and
through pre application discussions with Planning Services. The council has been
successful in obtaining government support enabling the Council to borrow additional
funding to support the cost of developing the new homes, as well as using capital receipts
from the sale of council homes under the Right to Buy and other housing resources.
Additionally the Council also has opportunities for some wider housing estate
regeneration and redevelopment schemes which are being developed in partnership with
local residents.
The Homes for Harrow programme contributes positively to the Council‟s vision for
Harrow Working Together to Make a Difference for Harrow and the Council‟s priorities in
the following ways:
1. Making a difference for the vulnerable – building a range of new affordable homes
including homes for those who are most in need.
2. Making a difference for communities – This work provides an opportunity to involve and
engage both residents on estates and from the wider community in the development of
new homes, the replacement of poor housing and improvements to the external
environment.
3. Making a difference for local businesses – The procurement of contractors for the infill
development programme provides an opportunity to encourage and support local, small to
medium sized contractors in tendering for the work.
4. Making a difference for families – building a range of new affordable homes with a
significant proportion aimed at larger families and improving the worst social housing in
Harrow. Other benefits flowing from these development programmes include the creation
of apprenticeships, jobs and training opportunities to help those most in need, especially
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
150
the young.
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of the Development
Character and Appearance of the Area
Residential Amenity
Traffic Parking and Servicing
Flood Risk and Drainage
Accessibility
Sustainability
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
Equalities and Human Rights
Consultation Responses
Principle of the Development
The National Planning Policy Framework outlines that the purpose of the planning system
is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It emphasises that
paragraphs 18 to 219 should be taken as a whole. Economic, social and environmental
considerations form the three dimensions of sustainable development. With regard to the
social role of the planning system, this is in supporting strong, vibrant and healthy
communities by creating a high quality build environment that reflect the community
needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being. In order to achieve
sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought
jointly.
Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that: „This National Planning Policy Framework does
not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision
making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be
approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other
material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
Having regard to the planning designations on the site, there are no development plan
policies that specifically preclude the provision of residential dwellings here. The
proposed development would not result in development on garden land and would
therefore not conflict with Core Strategy policies CS1A and CS1B.
Policy 3.8 of The London Plan (2015) also encourages the borough to provide a range of
housing choices in order to take account of the various different groups who require
different types of housing. Further to this, Core Policy CS(I) states that „New residential
development shall result in a mix of housing in terms of type, size and tenure across the
Borough and within neighbourhoods, to promote housing choice, meet local needs, and to
maintain mixed and sustainable communities‟.
The site is not allocated for development but represents „a previously developed‟ site.
The redevelopment of the site and the provision of new dwellings on the site are
considered to represent a „windfall development‟ as outlined in the Core Strategy. The
use of the land for residential uses could therefore be supported in principle and would
make an important contribution to the housing stock in the borough, including affordable
housing, particularly having regard to the increased housing target identified within the
London Plan (2015).
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
151
The principle of the re-development of the site is considered to be acceptable by officers,
subject to consideration of further policy requirements as detailed below.
Character and Appearance of the Area
The NPPF makes it very clear that good design is a key aspect of sustainable
development and is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to
making better places for people.
The London Plan (2015) policies 7.4B and 7.6B set out the design principles that all
boroughs should seek to ensure for all development proposals. The London Plan (2015)
policy 7.4B states, inter alia, that all development proposals should have regard to the
local context, contribute to a positive relationship between the urban landscape and
natural features, be human in scale, make a positive contribution and should be informed
by the historic environment. The London Plan (2015) policy 7.6B states, inter alia, that all
development proposals should; be of the highest architectural quality, which complement
the local architectural character and be of an appropriate proportion composition, scale
and orientation. Policy 7.8D of The London Plan (2015) states that „Development
affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being
sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail‟.
Core Policy CS(B) states that „All development shall respond positively to the local and
historic context in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce the positive
attributes of local distinctiveness whilst promoting innovative design and/or enhancing
areas of poor design.‟
Policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013)
reinforces the principles set out under The London Plan (2015) policies 7.4B and 7.6B
and seeks a high standard of design and layout in all development proposals. It goes on
to state, amongst other things, that developments should contribute to the creation of a
positive identity through the quality of building layout and design, should be designed to
complement their surroundings, and should have a satisfactory relationship with adjoining
buildings and spaces.
Siting, Scale and Massing
The proposed development would read as a contemporary extrusion of the existing
parade of shops with flats above along The Heights. The extended built form would be set
back 2m from the front elevation of the existing flats with a 3.6m wide link to provide
access to the proposed and existing flats. The proposed extension would reflective in
scale to the main block. It would maintain a sympathetic relationship in terms of
separation, building heights and mass with the highway, the neighbouring properties to
the north and the building it would be extended from.
Design and Appearance
The proposed extension would create a modern development of flats. The extension
would be connected to the original flats with a glazed transitional link. The architecture
would be composed, contemporary and robust, which is supported and encourage by
local, regional and national policy. The design and appearance would read as an organic
and sympathetic evolution of the built for and, subject to a condition to secure final details
of proposed materials, which would be attached to the permission, would secure a high
quality of design.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
152
Landscaping
Policy DM 27 of the Harrow DMP LP (2013) states that: “Residential development
proposals that provide appropriate amenity space will be supported. The appropriate form
and amount of amenity space should be informed by
a. the location and dwelling mix;
b. the likely needs of future occupiers of the development;
c. the character and pattern of existing development in the area;
d. the need to safeguard the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers; and
e. the quality of the space proposed including landscaping (see Policy DM22 Trees and
Landscaping).”
A 3m deep grass verge with low level shrubs adjacent to the proposal would be provided.
The amount and form of amenity space is considered to be acceptable in relation to the
wider character of the area.
Policy DM 45 of the Harrow DMP LP (2013) outlines that bin and refuse storage must be
provided in such a way to minimise its visual impact and avoid nuisance to occupiers,
while providing a secure and convenient facility for occupiers and collection”. No details
have been provided with regard to refuse storage. A condition to secure details of refuse
storage is recommended, should approval be granted.
In summary, it is considered that the design of proposed development would make a
positive contribution to the character of the area and would reinforce the positive aspects
of local distinctiveness. Officers consider the re-development of the site would provide an
increased sense of place, vibrancy and identity within the community and would
successfully integrate into the surrounding suburban context. The proposed extension,
whilst of a more contemporary appearance, due to its scale, design and siting would be
sympathetic and complimentary to the adjacent surrounding residential dwellings. As
such, the proposal is considered to comply with The National Planning Policy Framework
(2012), policies 7.4B and 7.6B of The London Plan (2015) core policy CS1 of the Harrow
Core Strategy (2012) and policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Polices
Local Plan (2013).
Residential Amenity
Policy 7.6 of The London Plan (2015) states that “Buildings and structures should not
cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the surrounding land and buildings,
particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and
microclimate”.
Policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013) requires
that: “All development and change of use proposals must achieve a high standard of
privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers”. The assessment of the design and
layout of proposals will have regard to: “the massing, bulk, scale and height of proposed
buildings in relation to the location, the surroundings and any impact on neighbouring
occupiers”.
Amenity impacts in relation to scale, massing and siting
The separation distances between the proposal and the adjoining properties in The
Heights are considered to be sufficient to safeguard against any undue impacts on light or
outlook or overshadowing. Though the bedroom windows on the northern flank would
face No.199 The Heights, the building would be over 12m from the southern flank of this
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
153
property and to ensure that no undue overlooking or loss of privacy would occur; screens
are proposed over these windows. This would direct views out of these windows to the
west of the site and negate any undue impact on the privacy of the occupiers of No.199
The Heights. The balconies proposed in the northern elevation would offer view over the
public domain of The Height and are therefore considered acceptable.
The relationship is considered to be typical of many suburban locations. Subject to
conditions on final materials, the development should successfully integrate into the
character of the surrounding suburban context.
Vehicle Access, Noise and Disturbance
The proposed residential use is consistent with the surrounding land use. Although the
proposal may generate more activity outside of normal working hours and into the
evening and weekends, it is not expected that they would generate unacceptable levels of
activity or noise and disturbance, given the existence of similar residential properties
close.
Amenity Impacts on the Future Occupiers of the Dwellings
Policy DM 27 of the Harrow DMP LP (2013) states that: “Residential development
proposals that provide appropriate amenity space will be supported. The appropriate form
and amount of amenity space should be informed by
a. the location and dwelling mix;
b. the likely needs of future occupiers of the development;
c. the character and pattern of existing development in the area;
d. the need to safeguard the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers; and
e. the quality of the space proposed including landscaping (see Policy DM22 Trees and
Landscaping).”
The Residential Design Guide SPD states “in circumstances where it is not possible or
appropriate to provide private gardens and communal amenity space, suitable alternative
arrangements for the future occupiers of the development must be made. Each new unit
would provide 5 sqm balconies which is considered adequate.
Table 3.3 of the adopted London Plan (2015) specifies minimum Gross Internal Areas
(GIA) for residential units. Paragraph 3.36 of the London Plan (2015) specifies that these
are minimum sizes and should be exceeded where possible. The use of these residential
unit GIA‟s as minima is also reiterated in Appendix 1 of the Council‟s adopted SPD.
In addition, paragraph 59 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)
states that local planning authorities should consider using design codes where they
could help deliver high quality outcomes. Policy 3.5C of The London Plan (2011) also
specifies that Boroughs should ensure that, amongst other things, new dwellings have
adequately sized rooms and convenient and efficient room layouts. In view of paragraph
59 of the NPPF and Policy 3.5C of The London Plan (2015), and when considering what
is an appropriate standard of accommodation and quality of design, the Council has due
regard to the Mayor of London‟s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)
(November 2012).
The room sizes of the houses are shown in the table below, along with the minimum floor
areas for rooms as recommended by the Housing Standards Policy Transition Statement
(May 2015):
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
154
Gross Internal Floor
Bedroom
Area
Housing Standards Policy 2 bedroom, 4 person Double 11.5sqm
Transition
Statement (70 sqm)
(May 2015)
Proposed flats
Double 1 – 15sqm
Double 2 – 8.7sqm
71 sqm
Storage
2sqm
2.5sqm
With reference to the above table, it is considered that adequate Gross Internal Area and
adequate room sizes of the dwellinghouses would result in an acceptable form of
accommodation.
Refuse
No details of additional refuse storage have been provided. A condition to secure details
of refuse storage is recommended, should approval be granted.
In summary, officers consider that the proposal would accord with the National Planning
Policy Framework (2012), policies 3.5C and 7.6B of The London plan (2015), policies
DM 1 and DM 27 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013),
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing Design Guide (2012) and adopted
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD): Residential Design Guide (2010).
Traffic Parking and Servicing
The London Plan (2015) policies 6.3, 6.9 and 6.13 seek to regulate parking in order to
minimise additional car travel and encourage use of more sustainable means of travel.
Core Strategy Policy CS 1 R and policy DM 42 of the Development Management DPD,
also seeks to provide a managed response to car use and traffic growth associated with
new development.
The site is currently occupied by some garages and as such levels of traffic generation
are not expected to be significantly different from the previous use on the site. The
Highway Authority have raised no objection and state that this location has very low traffic
flows and low speeds and have no concerns regarding the proposed parking layout which
maximises the space available.
Overall, officers consider that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the free
flow of traffic or highway and pedestrian safety. In view of the above, it is considered that
the proposal is acceptable in relation to policies 6.3, 6.9 and 6.13 of The London Plan
(2015), policy CS1 R of the Harrow CS (2012) and policy DM 42 of the Harrow DMP LP
(2013).
Flood Risk and Drainage
The application site is located in a critical drainage area of Harrow. Policy DM10 was
introduced to address surface water run-off and flood risk from developments. The
application would result in a net increase in development footprint and there is the
potential for surface water run-off rates to increase. It is noted that objections have been
received regarding drainage issues at the site. However, the Drainage authority has
raised no objection and has recommended conditions.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
155
Subject to the above, the development is considered to fulfil the objectives of the NPPF
concerning managed impacts upon flood risk and would satisfy London Plan (2015)
policies 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14, policy CS1 U of the Harrow Core Strategy, and policy DM 10
of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
Accessibility
The London Plan (2015) requires all new development in London to achieve the highest
standards of accessibility and inclusive design as outlined under policy 7.2. Policy DM 2
of the Harrow DMLP (2013) seeks to ensure that buildings and public spaces are readily
accessible to all
The submitted plans and accompanying Design and Access Statement indicates that the
proposed ground floor unit would meet “accessible and adaptable” objectives. It is
evident from the plans that external door widths and turning circles would be sufficient to
accommodate wheelchair users and to meet these Standards. A condition is
recommended to be attached to the permission, should approval be granted which would
require the units to be built to these standards. Subject to this, the proposed dwellings
would provide an acceptable level of accessibility in accordance with the above policies.
Sustainable Development
London Plan policy 5.2 „Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions‟ defines the established
hierarchy for assessing the sustainability aspects of new development. This policy sets
out the „lean, clean, green‟ approach, which is expanded in London Plan policies 5.3 to
5.11. Policy 5.2 B outlines the targets for carbon dioxide emissions reduction in buildings.
These targets are expressed as minimum improvements over the Target Emission Rate
(TER) outlined in the national Building Regulations.
Policy DM 12 outlines that “The design and layout of development proposals should:
a. utilise natural systems such as passive solar design and, wherever possible,
incorporate
high performing energy retention materials, to supplement the benefits of traditional
measures such as insulation and double glazing;
b. make provision for natural ventilation and shading to prevent internal overheating;
c. incorporate techniques that enhance biodiversity, such as green roofs and green walls
(such techniques will benefit other sustainability objectives including surface water
attenuation and the avoidance of internal and urban over-heating); and
d. where relevant, the design and layout of buildings should incorporate measures to
mitigate
any significant noise or air pollution arising from the future use of the development.”
Following on from this, Harrow Council has an adopted Supplementary Planning
Document in relation to Sustainable Building Design (2009).
The submitted Design and Access Statement states that the proposed development
would be built to comply with Building Regulations Part L. Adopted policies do not require
a higher standard for minor developments and this level would be acceptable.
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
Policy 7.3 of The London Plan (2015) seeks to ensure that developments should address
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
156
security issues and provide safe and secure environments.
The development would have adequate surveillance of the public realm from the front
elevation. The shared communal open space would also be directly overlooked from the
properties which will be an improvement compared to the existing open space on the site
which is currently more isolated from the surrounding properties. It is considered that the
site could be made secure by way of an appropriate condition for details of security
measures to be submitted and agreed. As such, this condition is recommended, should
approval be granted. Subject to the imposition of such a condition, It is deemed that this
application would not have any detrimental impact upon community safety and is
therefore acceptable in this regard.
Equalities and Human Rights
The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the
processing of the application and the preparation of this report.
In determining this planning application the Council has regard to its equalities obligations
under section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010. For the purposes of this report there are no
adverse equalities issues arising from this proposal. However, it is noted that equality
impact assessments play an important role in the formulation of planning policies;
however their use in respect of this specific application is very much the exception rather
than the norm. Taking proper account of the guidance contained in the London Plan
Supplementary Guidance on Planning for Equality and Diversity in London (and in
particular paragraph 2.6) the Council considers that there is no requirement for a Race
Equalities Impact Assessment.
Consultation Responses
 Very extensive development for a very small plot of land, height and width of the new
block eats into the open space that is at the bend of the highway.
As outlined above, the scale of development is proportionate to the site and
respects the pattern of development locally
 The garages are small and single storey and do not produce this urban and terracing
effect.
This is noted. As outlined above, the development would provide a proportionate,
composed and sympathetic response to the site context. In delivering new
housing, the development would make effective use of the land without
compromising the local environment.
 Intensification of use to the small plot with more vehicles (residents, visitors recycling,
waste disposal and deliveries) than what is currently enjoyed by the existing block.
This is noted. However, the effects of intensification, in the context of the small
number of units and the adjacent existing commercial and residential units would
not be harmful to the character of the area or neighbouring amenities.
 Access and parking to our business might be impeded if new residents and their
visitors do not keep to their section of parking and over spill into our parking spaces or
use our areas for turning and long/short term parking
This is true of any urban / suburban situation requires parking enforcement to
enforce any illegal parking as is the case currently
CONCLUSION
The development would support the Council‟s aspirations to make more effective use of
its assets and crucially deliver new homes for the vulnerable residents of the Borough.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
157
The proposal represents a composed, proportionate and sympathetic response to the site
constraints, whilst providing a high quality of contemporary architecture. The development
would respect neighbouring amenities and highway safety and convenience. Weighing up
the development plan policies and proposals then, and other material considerations,
including comments received in response to notification and consultation as set out
above, this application is recommended for grant.
CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission.
REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990.
2 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans and documents, details and
samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted
below shall be submitted to, provided on-site, and approved in writing by, the Local
Planning Authority before the commencement of any work above DPC level of the
buildings hereby permitted is carried out.
a: the external surfaces of the buildings
b: the ground surfacing
c: the boundary treatment
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall
thereafter be retained.
REASON: To safeguard the character and appearance of the locality, in accordance with
policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). Details
are required PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT to ensure a
satisfactory form of development and avoid potentially unenforceable conditions.
3 Save where varied by the other planning conditions comprising this planning
permission, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved plans: 84764 – 101; 84764 - 102; 84764 – 103; 84764 -110; 84764 -210;
84764 -211; 84764 -212; Design and Access Statement; Daylight and Sunlight Analysis
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
4 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until works for the
disposal of surface water, surface water attenuation and storage works have been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with these details and shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, reduce and mitigate the effects of
flood risk in accordance with policy DM10 of the Councils Development Management
Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid potentially
unenforceable conditions.
5 Before the first occupation of the flats hereby permitted, details of the facilities for the
secure storage of refuse bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority, and provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the
development being first occupied and retained thereafter. The refuse bins shall be stored
at all times, other than on collection days, in the designated refuse storage area, as
shown on the approved drawing.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
158
REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the locality, as required by policy DM 45 of the
Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). Details are required
PRIOR TO THE OCCUPATION to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid
potentially unenforceable conditions.
6 The development hereby permitted, as detailed in the submitted and approved
drawings, shall be built to “accessible and adaptable” standards as set out at standard
M4(2) of the Building Regulations and thereafter retained to those standards.
REASON: To ensure provision of accessible and adaptable' standard housing in
accordance with policy DM 2 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local
Plan (2013).
7 A landscape management plan, including species numbers/locations, long term design
objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all communal
landscape areas shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority prior to the occupation of the development. The landscape management plan
shall be carried out as approved. Details are required prior to occupation to ensure a
satisfactory form of development.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the
appearance of the development in accordance with policy DM22 of The Development
Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
Details are required PRIOR TO THE
OCCUPATION to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid potentially
unenforceable conditions.
8 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be
carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the
building, or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any existing or
new trees or shrubs which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the
development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be
replaced in the next planting season, with others of a similar size and species, unless the
local authority agrees any variation in writing.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the
appearance of the development in accordance with policy DM22 of The Development
Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
INFORMATIVES
1 The following policies are relevant to this decision:
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)
The London Plan (2011) (consolidated with alterations since 2011)(2015):
3.3 – Increasing Housing Supply
3.5 – Quality and Design of Housing Developments
3.8 – Housing Choice
5.2 – Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions
5.3 – Sustainable Design and Construction
5.12 – Flood Risk Management
5.13 – Sustainable Drainage
6.3 – Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity
6.9 – Cycling
6.13 – Parking
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
159
7.1 – Building London‟s Neighbourhoods and Communities
7.2 – An Inclusive Environment
7.3 – Designing Out Crime
7.4 – Local Character
7.6 – Architecture
7.21 – Trees and Woodlands
Harrow Core Strategy 2012
Core Policy CS 1 – Overarching Policy Objectives
Core Policy CS4 – South Harrow
Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013)
Policy DM 1 - Achieving a High Standard of Development
Policy DM 2 – Achieving Lifetime Neighbourhoods
Policy DM 10 – On Site Water Management and Surface Water Attenuation
Policy DM 12 – Sustainable Design and Layout
Policy DM 14 – Renewable Energy Technology
Policy DM 18 – Open Space
Policy DM 20 – Protection of Biodiversity and Access to Nature
Policy DM 21 –Enhancement of Biodiversity and Access to Nature
Policy DM 22 – Trees and Landscaping
Policy DM 23 – Streetside Greenness and Forecourt Greenery
Policy DM 24 – Housing Mix
Policy DM 27 – Amenity Space
Policy DM 42 – Parking Standards
Policy DM 44 - Servicing
Policy DM 45 – Waste Management
Relevant Supplementary Documents
Supplementary Planning Document – Access for All (2006)
Supplementary Planning Document: Garden Land Development (2013).
Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Design Guide (2010)
Supplementary Planning Document - Accessible Homes (2010)
Mayor Of London, Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (November 2012)
Housing Standards Policy Transition Statement (May 2015)
Code of Practice for Storage and Collection of Refuse and Materials for Recycling in
Domestic Properties (2008)
2 CONSIDERATE CONTRACTOR CODE OF PRACTICE
The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements in the attached Considerate
Contractor Code of Practice, in the interests of minimising any adverse effects arising
from building operations, and in particular the limitations on hours of working.
3 PARTY WALL ACT:
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify and obtain formal
agreement from adjoining owner(s) where the building owner intends to carry out building
work which involves:
1. work on an existing wall shared with another property;
2. building on the boundary with a neighbouring property;
3. excavating near a neighbouring building,
and that work falls within the scope of the Act.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
160
Procedures under this Act are quite separate from the need for planning permission or
building regulations approval.
“The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: Explanatory booklet” is available free of charge from:
Communities and Local Government Publications, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB
Please quote Product code: 02 BR 00862 when ordering
Also available for download from the CLG website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/133214.pdf
Tel: 0870 1226 236
Fax: 0870 1226 237
Textphone: 0870 1207 405
E-mail: communities@twoten.com
4 COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING CONDITIONS
IMPORTANT: Compliance With Planning Conditions Requiring Submission and Approval
of Details Before Development Commences
- You will be in breach of planning permission if you start development without complying
with a condition requiring you to do something before you start. For example, that a
scheme or details of the development must first be approved by the Local Planning
Authority.
- Carrying out works in breach of such a condition will not satisfy the requirement to
commence the development within the time permitted.
- Beginning development in breach of a planning condition will invalidate your planning
permission.
- If you require confirmation as to whether the works you have carried out are acceptable,
then you should apply to the Local Planning Authority for a certificate of lawfulness.
5 DUTY TO BE POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE
Statement under Article 31 (1) (cc) of The Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended).
This decision has been taken in accordance with paragraphs 187-189 of The National
Planning Policy Framework. Pre-application advice was sought and provided and the
submitted application was in accordance with that advice.
6 INFORM61_M
Please be advised that approval of this application, (by PINS if allowed on Appeal
following the Refusal by Harrow Council), attracts a liability payment of £9,310 of
Community Infrastructure Levy. This charge has been levied under Greater London
Authority CIL charging schedule and s211 of the Planning Act 2008.
Harrow Council as CIL collecting authority on commencement of development will be
collecting the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
Your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £9,310
for the application, based on the levy rate for Harrow of £35/sqm and the stated
floorspace of 265.5sqm
You are advised to visit the planning portal website where you can download the
appropriate document templates.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
161
7 INFORMATIVE:
Harrow has a Community Infrastructure Levy which will apply Borough wide for certain
uses of over 100sqm gross internal floor space. The CIL has been examined by the
Planning Inspectorate and found to be legally compliant. It will be charged from the 1st
October 2013. Any planning application determined after this date will be charged
accordingly.
Harrow's Charges are:
Residential (Use Class C3) - £110 per sqm;
Hotels (Use Class C1), Residential Institutions except Hospitals, (Use Class C2), Student
Accommodation, Hostels and HMOs (Sui generis)- £55 per sqm;
Retail (Use Class A1), Financial & Professional Services (Use Class A2), Restaurants
and Cafes (Use Class A3) Drinking Establishments (Use Class A4) Hot Food Takeaways
(Use Class A5) - £100 per sqm
All other uses - Nil.
The Harrow CIL Liability for this development is: £29,260.
Plan Nos: 84764 – 101; 84764 - 102; 84764 – 103; 84764 -110; 84764 -210; 84764 -211;
84764 -212; Design and Access Statement; Daylight and Sunlight Analysis
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
162
GARAGES ADJACENT 209 THE HEIGHTS, NORTHOLT
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
163
ITEM NO:
2/03
ADDRESS:
REAR OF 249-255 PINNER ROAD, HARROW
REFERENCE:
P/5703/15
DESCRIPTION:
DEMOLITION
OF
EXISTING
GARAGES
AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THREE TWO STOREY TERRACED
HOUSES; REFUSE & CYCLE STORAGE; ASSOCIATED
LANDSCAPING
WARD:
HEADSTONE SOUTH
APPLICANT:
MR VAGHJI HIRANI
AGENT:
MR NITIN HIRANI
CASE OFFICER:
CATRIONA COOKE
EXPIRY DATE:
02/03/2016
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT planning permission subject to conditions:
INFORMATION
The application is reported to the Planning Committee because the proposal relates to a
terrace of three dwellinghouses. As such, it falls outside the scope of the exception
criteria set out at Part 1(b) of the Scheme of Delegation dated 29th May 2013.
Statutory Return Type: E13 Minor Dwellings
Council Interest: The land is owned by the Council.
Net additional Floor space: 274 sqm
GLA Community Infrastructure Levy Contribution (provisional): £10,800
Harrow Community Infrastructure Levy Contribution (provisional): £31,680
Site Description

The site is occupied by a row of five garages with direct access from „The Gardens‟
and by land immediately to the rear which includes the private rear gardens of No.‟s
249 and 251 Pinner Road. The part of the site currently occupied by garages was
historically part of the rear gardens of No.‟s 253 and 255 Pinner Road before
planning permission was granted in 1967.

The site is rectangular in shape with slightly splayed southern boundary which
widens the site from front to rear. The site is approximately 15 metres in width and
almost 20 metres in depth.

To the south of the site is an electricity substation installation enclosed by metal
pallisade fencing. An intervening alleyway provides a small gap between the
substation and the site southern side boundary.

Further to the south are elevated railways lines running between West Harrow and
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
164




Pinner Underground Stations.
Between the railway and the rear of the properties along Pinner Road and the
application site is a strip of land with wild trees, bushes and shrubbery. Planning
permission to establish this land as wildlife reserve was granted in 1999 (LPA ref:
WEST/67/99/FUL). The trees within this land are covered by a Group Tree
Preservation Order (TPO).
Opposite the site on the west side of „The Gardens‟ are a garage and bodywork
repair shop and a Tesco foodstore with associated car park.
The site is within Floodzone 3a and 3b
The ground level falls toward the south of the site.
Proposal Details

It is proposed to demolish the existing garages on the site and construct a terrace
of three two storey dwellinghouses.

The dwellings would be set back 5m from the highway. Each dwelling would be
5.2m in width with stepped gable roofs following the ground levels.

A 1.5m high boundary wall is proposed along the front boundary.

The proposed new dwellinghouses would each have two bedrooms and would
have a Gross Internal Areas (GIA) of 91.3sqm.
Revisions to Previous Application (P/0546/13)

Terrace of three dwellinghouses rather than a pair of semi-detached properties.
Relevant History
LBH/2035/1 - Erection 4 lock-up garages (revised)
Granted: 04 April 1967
P/3106/11 - Demolition of existing garages; new three storey building comprising six
flats; provision of six car parking spaces; landscaping and refuse
Refused: 26 January 2012
P/1409/12 – Demolition of existing garages; new two storey building comprising 4 flats;
provision of 4 car parking spaces; landscaping and refuse (revised)
Refused: 13/07/212
P/0546/13 - Demolition of existing garages and construction of a pair of semi detached
dwellinghouses access ramps at front and rear landscaping and bin storage
Refused: 29 April 2013
Reason for Refusal:
1. The proposed dwellinghouses, by reason of their siting within the curtilage of 249 and
251 Pinner Road and land previously severed from 253 and 255 Pinner Road, would be
sited on „garden land‟. As such, the principle of the development is at odds with the
Harrow Core Strategy of directing new residential and other development to the Harrow
& Wealdstone Intensification Area, town centres and, in suburban areas, to strategic
previously developed sites and would therefore harm its implementation contrary to the
National Planning Policy Framework 2012, policy 3.5.A of The London Plan 2011,
policies CS1.A and CS1.B of the Harrow Core Strategy 2012 and adopted
Supplementary Planning Document: Garden Land Development 2013.
2. The proposed development, by reason of unsatisfactory and unsympathetic design of
the buildings, would result in a anomalous and obtrusive development in the streetscene
which would fail to address the context or the development surroundings, to the
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
165
detriment of the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies 7.4.B and
7.6.B of The London Plan 2011, policy CS1.B of The Harrow Core Strategy 2012, saved
policy D4 of the Harrow Unitary development Plan and paragraphs 4.6 and 4.36 of the
adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide 2010.
1. The proposed development, by reason of the proximity of the first floor rear windows to
the boundary of 247 Pinner Road, would result in a perception of overlooking and loss of
privacy of the rear garden of this property, to the detriment of the amenities of the
occupiers of this property, contrary to saved policy 7.6.B of The London Plan 2011,
saved policy D4 of the Harrow Unitary development Plan and paragraph 4.75 of the
adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide 2010.
2. The proposed development, by reason of the failure to provide level access to the units
or an entrance level wheelchair toilet would not achieve Lifetime Homes standards, to
the potential detriment of future occupiers of the units and the inclusivity of the built
environment, contrary to policy 7.2.C of The London Plan 2011, policy CS1.K of the
Harrow Core Strategy 2012, saved policies D4 and C16 of the Harrow Unitary
Development Plan 2004 and adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Accessible
Homes 2010.”
Appeal Dismissed: In dismissing the Appeal, the Inspector concluded that the
development would not conflict with policy CS1.B of the Harrow Core Strategy is relation
to the spatial growth of the borough.
Applicant Submission Documents

Design and Access Statement

Flood Risk Assessment
Consultations
Highways Authority: We have no objection to the principle of the development. There
are no highway safety concerns
Drainage Engineer: No objection subject to conditions.
Landscape Architect: No comments received
Tree Officer: No comments received
Transport for London: No objection
Advertisement

N/A
Notifications
Sent: 5
Replies: 1 objection, 3 support
Expiry: 27/01/2016
Addresses Consulted
247-255 (odd) Pinner Road
Summary of Responses
Objection
 Proposal could ruin the character of the locality and potentially overwhelm the area.
 The proposal may further heighten community tensions.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
166



The reasons for rejecting this proposal previously do not appear to have been met
nor indeed satisfactorily satisfied by the current proposal as detailed from the
drawings.
The proposed siting of the development is particularly ill-considered and this has
been highlighted in previous dismissal of appeals made by the proposer
View of trees from back garden will be blocked.
Support
 The new residential development will make the area look much better and safer
 A positive proposal for the borough
APPRAISAL
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:
„If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to
be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with
the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
The Government has issued the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] which
consolidates national planning policy and is a material consideration in the determination
of this application.
In this instance, the development plan comprises the London Plan 2015 [LP]
(consolidated with alterations since 2011) (2015) and the Local Development Framework
[LDF]. The LDF comprises The Harrow Core Strategy 2012 [CS], Harrow and
Wealdstone Area Action Plan 2013 [AAP], the Development Management Policies Local
Plan 2013 [DMP], the Site Allocations Local Plan [SALP] 2013 and Harrow Local Area
Map 2013 [LAM].
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of the Development
Character and Appearance of the Area
Residential Amenity
Traffic Parking and Servicing
Flood Risk and Drainage
Accessibility
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
Equalities and Human Rights
Consultation Responses
Principle of the Development
The National Planning Policy Framework outlines that the purpose of the planning system
is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It emphasises that
paragraphs 18 to 219 should be taken as a whole. Economic, social and environmental
considerations form the three dimensions of sustainable development. With regard to the
social role of the planning system, this is in supporting strong, vibrant and healthy
communities by creating a high quality build environment that reflect the community
needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being. In order to achieve
sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought
jointly.
Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that: „This National Planning Policy Framework does
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
167
not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision
making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be
approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other
material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
This application follows a previous refusal P/0446/13. In the subsequent appeal decision
the Inspector states “the council have not claimed that the use of the lock up garages
occupying part of the site is unlawful, indeed the planning history set out in the officers‟
report suggests that planning permission was granted for the erection of lock up garages
in 1967. On this basis, the land occupied by the garages, on which most of the proposed
buildings would be would be erected, does not fall within the Council‟s definition of
garden land (SDP: Paragraph 3.3.c)…. The remainder of the site looks as if has been
fairly recently severed from the rear gardens of 249 & 251 Pinner Road. However most
of this land would remain as a garden, albeit serving the amenity requirements of the
residents of the new development rather than the residents of Nos. 249 & 251.
I conclude, in these circumstances that the effect on garden land is not as clear-cut as
the Council suggests, and certainly not sufficient to justify withholding permission for this
reason alone under the provision of CS policy CS 1B. That the development has the
potential of securing the removal of a block of ugly lock up garages located in a
prominent position represents adequate justification for making a departure from the strict
provisions of CS policy CS 1a, designed to direct growth to designated locations.”
The appeal was dismissed with regard to poor design harmful to the character and
appearance of the locality.
Given the above, the principle of the re-development of the site is considered to be
acceptable by officers, subject to consideration of further policy requirements as detailed
below.
Character and Appearance of the Area
The NPPF makes it very clear that good design is a key aspect of sustainable
development and is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to
making better places for people.
The London Plan (2015) policies 7.4B and 7.6B set out the design principles that all
boroughs should seek to ensure for all development proposals. The London Plan (2015)
policy 7.4B states, inter alia, that all development proposals should have regard to the
local context, contribute to a positive relationship between the urban landscape and
natural features, be human in scale, make a positive contribution and should be informed
by the historic environment. The London Plan (2015) policy 7.6B states, inter alia, that all
development proposals should; be of the highest architectural quality, which complement
the local architectural character and be of an appropriate proportion composition, scale
and orientation. Policy 7.8D of The London Plan (2015) states that „Development
affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their significance, by being
sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail‟.
Core Policy CS(B) states that „All development shall respond positively to the local and
historic context in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce the positive
attributes of local distinctiveness whilst promoting innovative design and/or enhancing
areas of poor design.‟
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
168
Policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013)
reinforces the principles set out under The London Plan (2015) policies 7.4B and 7.6B
and seeks a high standard of design and layout in all development proposals. It goes on
to state, amongst other things, that developments should contribute to the creation of a
positive identity through the quality of building layout and design, should be designed to
complement their surroundings, and should have a satisfactory relationship with adjoining
buildings and spaces.
Siting, Scale and Massing
The proposed dwelling houses would be situated to the front of the site facing a garage
and bodywork repair shop and a Tesco foodstore with associated parking. The private
gardens of the houses would sit at 90° to the rear garden boundaries of 249 and 251
Pinner Road. To the south of the site is an electricity substation installation enclosed by
metal palisade fencing, further the south are elevated railway lines.
The proposed
dwellings would be two storeys in height and the proposed ridge heights, eaves height
and plot widths of the dwellings would reflect the scale of the nearby properties in Pinner
Road. The dwellings would not be visually prominent given that they would be of a
similar scale to the surrounding properties.
Design and Appearance
The proposed dwellings would have a gabled roof to a similar height of dwellings in
Pinner Road. Each dwelling house would have 5m deep front gardens with 1.5m brick
boundary. The design and appearance of the proposed development is considered to be
acceptable. A condition is recommended to secure final details of proposed materials to
be approved.
Landscaping
Policy DM 27 of the Harrow DMP LP (2013) states that: “Residential development
proposals that provide appropriate amenity space will be supported. The appropriate form
and amount of amenity space should be informed by
a. the location and dwelling mix;
b. the likely needs of future occupiers of the development;
c. the character and pattern of existing development in the area;
d. the need to safeguard the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers; and
e. the quality of the space proposed including landscaping (see Policy DM22 Trees and
Landscaping).”
Each dwellinghouse would have access to a private rear amenity space. The amount
and form of amenity space is considered to be acceptable in relation to the wider
character of the area.
Policy DM 45 of the Harrow DMP LP (2013) outlines that bin and refuse storage must be
provided in such a way to minimise its visual impact and avoid nuisance to occupiers,
while providing a secure and convenient facility for occupiers and collection”. Refuse
storage for the proposed dwellings would be within an enclosure sited to at the front
boundary which is considered to be acceptable.
In summary, it is considered that the design of proposed development would make a
positive contribution to the character of the area and would reinforce the positive aspects
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
169
of local distinctiveness. Officers consider the re-development of the site would provide an
increased sense of place, vibrancy and identity within the community and would
successfully integrate into the surrounding suburban context. The proposed buildings,
whilst of a more contemporary appearance, due to their scale, design and siting would be
sympathetic and complimentary to the adjacent surrounding residential dwellings. As
such, the proposal is considered to comply with The National Planning Policy Framework
(2012), policies 7.4B, 7.6B and 7.8 C and D of The London Plan (2015) core policy CS1
B and D of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and policies DM1 and DM 7 of the Harrow
Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013).
Residential Amenity
Policy 7.6 of The London Plan (2015) states that “Buildings and structures should not
cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the surrounding land and buildings,
particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and
microclimate”.
Policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013) requires
that: “All development and change of use proposals must achieve a high standard of
privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers”. “The assessment of the design and
layout of proposals will have regard to: “the massing, bulk, scale and height of proposed
buildings in relation to the location, the surroundings and any impact on neighbouring
occupiers”.
Amenity impacts in relation to scale, massing and siting
The separation distances between the proposed dwellings and the adjoining properties in
Pinner Road are considered to be acceptable. The proposed dwellinghouses would be
set a minimum of 13m from the rear boundary of properties in Pinner Road. It is
acknowledged the new buildings will undoubtedly change the views and outlook from a
small number of surrounding properties. However, the planning system is not able to
safeguard or protect specific views from private houses. The separation between the
existing and proposed buildings has been set out above and it is considered to be
sufficient so as not to result in any undue harm on neighbouring amenity in terms of loss
of light, outlook and overshadowing and privacy. It is noted that no flank wall windows
are proposed and a condition is recommended to ensure that no windows are added in
the future. The windows in the rear elevation would offer views of the rear gardens of
properties in Pinner Road. In the previous scheme, discussed on appeal, the Inspector
considered that, as these windows served bathrooms and therefore be obscurely glazed,
they would not result in a loss of privacy to the rear. The current scheme indicates these
rooms would be used as bedrooms. Nonetheless, the windows could be obscurely glazed
and non-openable up to 1.7m which would ensure similar impact that which the Inspector
previously considered without unduly compromising the amenity of future occupiers. A
condition is recommended to this effect.
Vehicle Access, Noise and Disturbance
The proposed residential use is consistent with the surrounding land use. Although the
new dwellings may generate more activity outside of normal working hours and into the
evening and weekends, it is not expected that they would generate unacceptable levels
of activity or noise and disturbance, given the existence of similar residential properties in
the area.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
170
Amenity Impacts on the Future Occupiers of the Dwellings
Policy DM 27 of the Harrow DMP LP (2013) states that: “Residential development
proposals that provide appropriate amenity space will be supported. The appropriate form
and amount of amenity space should be informed by
a. the location and dwelling mix;
b. the likely needs of future occupiers of the development;
c. the character and pattern of existing development in the area;
d. the need to safeguard the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers; and
e. the quality of the space proposed including landscaping (see Policy DM22 Trees and
Landscaping).”
As discussed above, all of the residential units will have access to their own private
amenity space which is considered to be appropriate in size and form for each of the
proposed properties and would accord within the minimum standards set out in the
Mayoral Housing SPG (2012).
Table 3.3 of the adopted London Plan (2015) specifies minimum Gross Internal Areas
(GIA) for residential units. Paragraph 3.36 of the London Plan (2015) specifies that these
are minimum sizes and should be exceeded where possible. The use of these residential
unit GIA‟s as minima is also reiterated in Appendix 1 of the Council‟s adopted SPD.
In addition, paragraph 59 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)
states that local planning authorities should consider using design codes where they
could help deliver high quality outcomes. Policy 3.5C of The London Plan (2011) also
specifies that Boroughs should ensure that, amongst other things, new dwellings have
adequately sized rooms and convenient and efficient room layouts. In view of paragraph
59 of the NPPF and Policy 3.5C of The London Plan (2015), and when considering what
is an appropriate standard of accommodation and quality of design, the Council has due
regard to the Mayor of London‟s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)
(November 2012).
The room sizes of the houses are shown in the table below, along with the minimum floor
areas for rooms as recommended by the Housing Standards Policy Transition Statement
(May 2015):
Housing Standards
Policy Transition
Statement (May 2015)
Proposed
Dwellinghouses
Gross Internal
Bedroom
Floor Area
2 bedroom, 4 Double - 11.5sqm
person (83 sqm)
Single - 7.5sqm
Double 1 – 14.19sqm
Double 2 – 12.14sqm
91.3 sqm
Built-in
Storage
2sqm
2sqm
With reference to the above table, it is considered that adequate Gross Internal Area and
adequate room sizes of the dwellinghouses would result in an acceptable form of
accommodation.
Refuse
A refuse store will be provided for the dwellings adjacent to the front boundary which
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
171
provides a convenient place for collection. The refuse store would be a sufficient size to
accommodate three refuse containers which would provide sufficient capacity in
accordance with the Council‟s refuse standards.
In summary, the proposal would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework
(2012), policies 3.5C and 7.6B of The London plan (2015), policies DM 1 and DM 27 of
the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013), Supplementary
Planning Guidance: Housing Design Guide (2012) and adopted Supplementary Planning
Document (SPD): Residential Design Guide (2010).
Traffic Parking and Servicing
The London Plan (2015) policies 6.3, 6.9 and 6.13 seek to regulate parking in order to
minimise additional car travel and encourage use of more sustainable means of travel.
Core Strategy Policy CS 1 R and policy DM 42 of the Development Management DPD,
also seeks to provide a managed response to car use and traffic growth associated with
new development.
The site is currently occupied by five garages. There are no parking spaces provided and
two secure cycle spaces are provided in the rear garden of the dwellinghouses. It is
considered that given the site has a reasonable PTAL rating of 3 and the stringent
parking controls locally, the provision of „zero‟ parking would be acceptable in this
instance.
Overall, officers consider that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the free
flow of traffic or highway and pedestrian safety. In view of the above, it is considered that
the proposal is acceptable in relation to policies 6.3, 6.9 and 6.13 of The London Plan
(2015), policy CS1 R of the Harrow CS (2012) and policy DM 42 of the Harrow DMP LP
(2013).
Flood Risk and Drainage
The site is in flood zone 3a and 3b. The proposed use of the ground floor of the extension
is classed as less vulnerable in Table 2 of the technical guidance to the National Planning
Policy Framework. Table 3 of the technical guidance indicates that this form of
development is acceptable, subject to a suitable flood risk assessment.
The applicants have submitted a flood risk assessment which the Harrow Drainage
Authority have confirmed subject to conditions is sufficient to mitigate the effects of any
possible flooding on site or elsewhere and include resistance and resilience to flooding
and that suitable evacuation procedures would be implemented.
Subject to the above, the development is considered to fulfil the objectives of the NPPF
concerning managed impacts upon flood risk and would satisfy London Plan (2015)
policies 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14, policy CS1 U of the Harrow Core Strategy, and policy DM 9
of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
Accessibility
The London Plan (2015) requires all new development in London to achieve the highest
standards of accessibility and inclusive design as outlined under policy 7.2. Policy DM 2
of the Harrow DMLP (2013) seeks to ensure that buildings and public spaces are readily
accessible to all
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
172
The submitted plans and accompanying Design and Access Statement indicates that the
proposed dwelling houses would meet “accessible and adaptable” objectives. It is
evident from the plans that external door widths and turning circles in the proposed
dwellings would be sufficient to accommodate wheelchair users and to meet these
Standards and a ramp has been provided to form a level access.
A condition is
recommended to be attached to the permission, which would require the dwellings to be
built to these standards. Subject to this, the proposed dwellings would provide an
acceptable level of accessibility in accordance with the above policies.
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
Policy 7.3 of The London Plan (2015) seeks to ensure that developments should address
security issues and provide safe and secure environments.
It is considered that the proposed development would not adversely impact upon
community safety issues or conflict with development plan policies in this regard.
Equalities and Human Rights
The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the
processing of the application and the preparation of this report.
In determining this planning application the Council has regard to its equalities obligations
under section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010. For the purposes of this report there are no
adverse equalities issues arising from this proposal. However, it is noted that equality
impact assessments play an important role in the formulation of planning policies;
however their use in respect of this specific application is very much the exception rather
than the norm. Taking proper account of the guidance contained in the London Plan
Supplementary Guidance on Planning for Equality and Diversity in London (and in
particular paragraph 2.6) the Council considers that there is no requirement for a Race
Equalities Impact Assessment.
Consultation Responses
All material planning considerations have been addressed above.
CONCLUSION
The scheme would provide for additional „windfall‟ housing in the Borough, without unduly
impacting on the character of the area, neighbouring amenity or highway safety or
convenience. For these reasons, and weighing up the development plan policies and
proposals, and other material considerations including comments received in response to
notification and consultation as set out above, this application is recommended for grant.
CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission.
REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990.
2 Save where varied by the other planning conditions comprising this planning
permission, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved plans: Site Location Plan (1 of 7) Rev 1; Site Synthesis (2 of 7)(Rev 1);
Existing Site Plan (3 of 7) Rev 1; Proposed floorplans (4 of 7) Rev 3; Proposed elevation
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
173
1 (5 of 7) Rev 3; Proposed elevation 2 (6 of 7) Rev 3; Proposed elevations and cross
section ( 7 of 7) Rev 3; Flood Risk Assessment.
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans and documents, details and
samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted
below shall be submitted to, provided on-site, and approved in writing by, the Local
Planning Authority before the commencement of any work above DPC level of the
buildings hereby permitted is carried out.
a: the external surfaces of the buildings
b: the ground surfacing and landscaping
c: the boundary treatment
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall
thereafter be retained.
REASON: To safeguard the character and appearance of the locality, in accordance with
policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). Details
are required PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT to ensure a
satisfactory form of development and avoid potentially unenforceable conditions.
4 The development of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted shall not be commenced
until works for the disposal of surface water, surface water attenuation and storage works
have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with these details and shall thereafter be
retained.
REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, reduce and mitigate the effects of
flood risk in accordance with policy DM10 of the Councils Development Management
Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid potentially
unenforceable conditions.
5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order
with or without modification), no development which would otherwise fall within Classes
A, B, D, E and F in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out in relation to the
dwellinghouses hereby permitted without the prior written permission of the local planning
authority.
REASON: To safeguard the character of the area by restricting the amount of site
coverage and size of the dwellinghouses in relation to the size of the plot and availability
of amenity space and to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents, in accordance
with policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
6 The refuse bins shall be stored at all times, other than on collection days, in the
designated refuse storage area, as shown on the approved drawing.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the locality, as required by policy DM 45 of
the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
7 The development hereby permitted, as detailed in the submitted and approved
drawings, shall be built to “accessible and adaptable” standards as set out at standard
M4(2) of the Building Regulations and thereafter retained to those standards.
REASON: To ensure provision of accessible and adaptable' standard housing in
accordance with policy DM 2 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
174
Plan (2013).
8 The windows hereby approved at first floor level on the rear elevation of the dwellings
shall be obscurely glazed and non-openable up to a height of 1.7m (measured from the
internal floor level).
REASON: To safeguard the privacy of the gardens of the neighbouring occupiers to the
rear, thereby according with policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Local
Plan 2013.
INFORMATIVES
1 The following policies are relevant to this decision:
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)
The London Plan (2011) (consolidated with alterations since 2011)(2015):
3.3 – Increasing Housing Supply
3.5 – Quality and Design of Housing Developments
3.8 – Housing Choice
5.2 – Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions
5.3 – Sustainable Design and Construction
5.12 – Flood Risk Management
5.13 – Sustainable Drainage
6.3 – Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity
6.9 – Cycling
6.13 – Parking
7.1 – Building London‟s Neighbourhoods and Communities
7.2 – An Inclusive Environment
7.3 – Designing Out Crime
7.4 – Local Character
7.6 – Architecture
7.21 – Trees and Woodlands
Harrow Core Strategy 2012
Core Policy CS 1 – Overarching Policy Objectives
Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013)
Policy DM 1 - Achieving a High Standard of Development
Policy DM 2 – Achieving Lifetime Neighbourhoods
Policy DM 9 – Managing Flood Risk
Policy DM 10 – On Site Water Management and Surface Water Attenuation
Policy DM 12 – Sustainable Design and Layout
Policy DM 14 – Renewable Energy Technology
Policy DM 18 – Open Space
Policy DM 20 – Protection of Biodiversity and Access to Nature
Policy DM 21 –Enhancement of Biodiversity and Access to Nature
Policy DM 22 – Trees and Landscaping
Policy DM 23 – Streetside Greenness and Forecourt Greenery
Policy DM 24 – Housing Mix
Policy DM 27 – Amenity Space
Policy DM 42 – Parking Standards
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
175
Policy DM 44 - Servicing
Policy DM 45 – Waste Management
Relevant Supplementary Documents
Supplementary Planning Document – Access for All (2006)
Supplementary Planning Document: Garden Land Development (2013).
Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Design Guide (2010)
Supplementary Planning Document - Accessible Homes (2010)
Mayor Of London, Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (November 2012)
Housing Standards Policy Transition Statement (May 2015)
Code of Practice for Storage and Collection of Refuse and Materials for Recycling in
Domestic Properties (2008)
2 CONSIDERATE CONTRACTOR CODE OF PRACTICE
The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements in the attached Considerate
Contractor Code of Practice, in the interests of minimising any adverse effects arising
from building operations, and in particular the limitations on hours of working.
3 PARTY WALL ACT:
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify and obtain formal
agreement from adjoining owner(s) where the building owner intends to carry out building
work which involves:
1. work on an existing wall shared with another property;
2. building on the boundary with a neighbouring property;
3. excavating near a neighbouring building,
and that work falls within the scope of the Act.
Procedures under this Act are quite separate from the need for planning permission or
building regulations approval.
“The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: Explanatory booklet” is available free of charge from:
Communities and Local Government Publications, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB
Please quote Product code: 02 BR 00862 when ordering
Also available for download from the CLG website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/133214.pdf
Tel: 0870 1226 236
Fax: 0870 1226 237
Textphone: 0870 1207 405
E-mail: communities@twoten.com
4 COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING CONDITIONS
IMPORTANT: Compliance With Planning Conditions Requiring Submission and Approval
of Details Before Development Commences
- You will be in breach of planning permission if you start development without complying
with a condition requiring you to do something before you start. For example, that a
scheme or details of the development must first be approved by the Local Planning
Authority.
- Carrying out works in breach of such a condition will not satisfy the requirement to
commence the development within the time permitted.
- Beginning development in breach of a planning condition will invalidate your planning
permission.
- If you require confirmation as to whether the works you have carried out are acceptable,
then you should apply to the Local Planning Authority for a certificate of lawfulness.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
176
5 DUTY TO BE POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE
Statement under Article 31 (1) (cc) of The Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended).
This decision has been taken in accordance with paragraphs 187-189 of The National
Planning Policy Framework. Pre-application advice was sought and provided and the
submitted application was in accordance with that advice.
6 INFORM61_M
Please be advised that approval of this application, (by PINS if allowed on Appeal
following the Refusal by Harrow Council), attracts a liability payment of £10,800 of
Community Infrastructure Levy. This charge has been levied under Greater London
Authority CIL charging schedule and s211 of the Planning Act 2008.
Harrow Council as CIL collecting authority on commencement of development
will be collecting the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
Your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £10,800 for the
application, based on the levy rate for Harrow of £35/sqm and the stated floorspace of
274sqm
You are advised to visit the planning portal website where you can download the
appropriate document templates.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil
7 INFORMATIVE:
Harrow has a Community Infrastructure Levy which will apply Borough wide for certain
uses of over 100sqm gross internal floor space. The CIL has been examined by the
Planning Inspectorate and found to be legally compliant. It will be charged from the 1st
October 2013. Any planning application determined after this date will be charged
accordingly.
Harrow's Charges are:
Residential (Use Class C3) - £110 per sqm;
Hotels (Use Class C1), Residential Institutions except Hospitals, (Use Class C2), Student
Accommodation, Hostels and HMOs (Sui generis)- £55 per sqm;
Retail (Use Class A1), Financial & Professional Services (Use Class A2), Restaurants
and Cafes (Use Class A3) Drinking Establishments (Use Class A4) Hot Food Takeaways
(Use Class A5) - £100 per sqm
All other uses - Nil.
The Harrow CIL Liability for this development is: £31,680.
Plan Nos: Site Location Plan (1 of 7) Rev 1; Site Synthesis (2 of 7)(Rev 1); Existing Site
Plan (3 of 7) Rev 1; Proposed floorplans (4 of 7) Rev 3; Proposed elevation 1 (5 of 7)
Rev 3; Proposed elevation 2 (6 of 7) Rev 3; Proposed elevations and cross section (7 of
7) Rev 3; Flood Risk Assessment.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
177
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
178
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
179
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
180
REAR OF 249-255 PINNER ROAD, HARROW
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
181
ITEM NO:
2/04
ADDRESS:
LAND AT HOLSWORTH CLOSE, HARROW
REFERENCE:
P/5824/15
DESCRIPTION:
REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE TWO X TWO STOREY
DWELLINGHOUSES ; RE-LOCATION OF BIN STORE;
REORGANISATION OF PARKING BAYS AND TURNING POINT
WARD:
HEADSTONE SOUTH
APPLICANT:
HARROW COUNCIL
AGENT:
LEVITT BERNSTEIN
CASE OFFICER:
CATRIONA COOKE
EXPIRY DATE:
02/03/2016
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT planning permission subject to conditions
INFORMATION
The application is reported to the Planning Committee as the subject site is owned by
the Council and is over 100sqm in area. As such, it falls outside the scope of the
exception criteria set out at Part 1(h) of the Scheme of Delegation dated 29th May 2013.
Statutory Return Type: E13 Minor Dwellings
Council Interest: The land is owned by the Council.
Net additional Floor space: 186 sqm
GLA Community Infrastructure Levy Contribution (provisional): £6,510
Harrow Community Infrastructure Levy Contribution (provisional): £20,460
Site Description
 The application site consists of an open parking court located behind a block of pram
stores and communal refuse store sited at the head of a cul-de-sac which contains
two three storey blocks of flats.
 The overall site area spans an area of approximately 1070m2.
 The site is bounded to the south by the rear gardens of properties in Canterbury
Road.
 The site has a PTAL rating of 1b.
Proposal Details
 A redevelopment of the site is proposed to create two, two storey terraced houses
together with associated refuse and cycle storage and landscaping.
 The proposed dwellings would be located to the front of the site
 Each dwellinghouse would have a width of approximately 5.6 metres and a depth of
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
182





approximately 10 metres.
The dwellings would have a pitched roof design with a maximum height of 7.9
metres.
Each dwellinghouse would contain three bedrooms and would be provided with a
private amenity space at the rear.
A minimum of 45m2 of private amenity space would be provided for each
dwellinghouse.
The bin store which sits between the existing two banks of pram stores would be
removed and replaced along the strip to the north of the existing stores to provide
access and turning for service vehicles
Parking spaces would be reorganised part of the strip to the north of the site. Where
currently the site accommodates 17 parking spaces, 12 would be re-provided, a
reduction of 5 spaces.
Revisions to Previous Application
 N/A
Relevant History
 N/A
Applicant Submission Documents
 Design and Access Statement
Consultations
Highways Authority: We have no objection to the principle of the development. There
are no highway safety concerns.
Drainage Engineer: No objection subject to conditions.
Landscape Architect: No comments received
Advertisement
 N/A
Notifications
Sent:
50
Replies: 3
Expiry: 08/02/2016
Site Notice
Erected: 22/01/2016
Expiry: 12/02/2016
Addresses Consulted
14 Apsley Close
111-129 (odd) Canterbury Road
1-30 (all) Holsworth Close
Flats 13 to 18 Holsworth Close
Flats 19 to 24 Holsworth Close
Flats 7 to 12 Holsworth Close
Flats 1 to 6 Holsworth Close
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
183
Summary of Responses
 Lack of parking will create overcrowding and possible parking disputes
 Proposed relocation of the bin store is no acceptable due to health and safety as the
current bin area is over used and not cleaned by the Council.
APPRAISAL
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:
„If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to
be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with
the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
The Government has issued the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] which
consolidates national planning policy and is a material consideration in the determination
of this application.
In this instance, the development plan comprises the London Plan 2015 [LP]
(consolidated with alterations since 2011) (2015) and the Local Development Framework
[LDF]. The LDF comprises The Harrow Core Strategy 2012 [CS], Harrow and
Wealdstone Area Action Plan 2013 [AAP], the Development Management Policies Local
Plan 2013 [DMP], the Site Allocations Local Plan [SALP] 2013 and Harrow Local Area
Map 2013 [LAM].
BACKGROUND
Homes for Harrow development programme
Demand for affordable housing to rent and buy in Harrow is high and growing. The
council now has around 150 families housed in temporary Bed and Breakfast
accommodation when a few years ago there were none. The council‟s Housing Service
now has the financial freedom to start building new council housing and the Homes for
Harrow programme has identified a number of opportunities where we can start building
the first new council homes in a generation.
The Council commissioned a capacity study to identify opportunities to build new homes
within existing council housing estates, disused and dysfunctional garages, (often the
cause of anti-social behavior) and other areas of in-fill development. This work was
carried out in consultation with the Harrow Federation of Tenant and Resident
Associations and Councilors and with other council services.
A number of opportunities have been identified. The first phase of 13 sites will deliver 40
new Affordable homes for rent including large family houses which are in extremely short
supply, as well as 10 new Shared Ownership homes also aimed at families. Planning
applications have been worked up following resident consultation on each site and
through pre application discussions with Planning Services. The council has been
successful in obtaining government support enabling the Council to borrow additional
funding to support the cost of developing the new homes, as well as using capital
receipts from the sale of council homes under the Right to Buy and other housing
resources.
Additionally the Council also has opportunities for some wider housing estate
regeneration and redevelopment schemes which are being developed in partnership
with local residents.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
184
The Homes for Harrow programme contributes positively to the Council‟s vision for
Harrow Working Together to Make a Difference for Harrow and the Council‟s priorities in
the following ways:
1. Making a difference for the vulnerable – building a range of new affordable homes
including homes for those who are most in need.
2. Making a difference for communities – This work provides an opportunity to involve
and engage both residents on estates and from the wider community in the development
of new homes, the replacement of poor housing and improvements to the external
environment.
3. Making a difference for local businesses – The procurement of contractors for the infill
development programme provides an opportunity to encourage and support local, small
to medium sized contractors in tendering for the work.
4. Making a difference for families – building a range of new affordable homes with a
significant proportion aimed at larger families and improving the worst social housing in
Harrow. Other benefits flowing from these development programmes include the
creation of apprenticeships, jobs and training opportunities to help those most in need,
especially the young.
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of the Development
Character and Appearance of the Area
Residential Amenity
Traffic Parking and Servicing
Flood Risk and Drainage
Accessibility
Sustainability
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
Equalities and Human Rights
Consultation Responses
Principle of the Development
The National Planning Policy Framework outlines that the purpose of the planning
system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It emphasises
that paragraphs 18 to 219 should be taken as a whole. Economic, social and
environmental considerations form the three dimensions of sustainable development.
With regard to the social role of the planning system, this is in supporting strong, vibrant
and healthy communities by creating a high quality build environment that reflect the
community needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being. In order to
achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be
sought jointly.
Paragraph 12 of the NPPF states that: „This National Planning Policy Framework does
not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision
making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be
approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other
material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
Having regard to the planning designations on the site, there are no development plan
policies that specifically preclude the provision of residential dwellings here. The
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
185
proposed development would not result in development on garden land and would
therefore not conflict with Core Strategy policies CS1A and CS1B.
Policy 3.8 of The London Plan (2015) also encourages the borough to provide a range of
housing choices in order to take account of the various different groups who require
different types of housing. Further to this, Core Policy CS(I) states that „New residential
development shall result in a mix of housing in terms of type, size and tenure across the
Borough and within neighbourhoods, to promote housing choice, meet local needs, and
to maintain mixed and sustainable communities‟.
The site is not allocated for development but represents „a previously developed‟ site.
The redevelopment of the site and the provision of new dwellings on the site are
considered to represent a „windfall development‟ as outlined in the Core Strategy. The
use of the land for residential uses could therefore be supported in principle and would
make an important contribution to the housing stock in the borough, including affordable
housing, particularly having regard to the increased housing target identified within the
London Plan (2015).
The principle of the re-development of the site is considered to be acceptable by officers,
subject to consideration of further policy requirements as detailed below.
Character and Appearance of the Area
The NPPF makes it very clear that good design is a key aspect of sustainable
development and is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to
making better places for people.
The London Plan (2015) policies 7.4B and 7.6B set out the design principles that all
boroughs should seek to ensure for all development proposals. The London Plan (2015)
policy 7.4B states, inter alia, that all development proposals should have regard to the
local context, contribute to a positive relationship between the urban landscape and
natural features, be human in scale, make a positive contribution and should be
informed by the historic environment. The London Plan (2015) policy 7.6B states, inter
alia, that all development proposals should; be of the highest architectural quality, which
complement the local architectural character and be of an appropriate proportion
composition, scale and orientation. Policy 7.8D of The London Plan (2015) states that
„Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their
significance, by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail‟.
Core Policy CS(B) states that „All development shall respond positively to the local and
historic context in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce the positive
attributes of local distinctiveness whilst promoting innovative design and/or enhancing
areas of poor design.‟
Policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013)
reinforces the principles set out under The London Plan (2015) policies 7.4B and 7.6B
and seeks a high standard of design and layout in all development proposals. It goes on
to state, amongst other things, that developments should contribute to the creation of a
positive identity through the quality of building layout and design, should be designed to
complement their surroundings, and should have a satisfactory relationship with
adjoining buildings and spaces.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
186
Siting, Scale and Massing
The proposed dwelling houses would be situated to the front of the site adjacent to No.
15 Holsworth Close, with the rear gardens of the houses in Canterbury Road adjoining
the site to the rear. To the north and east of the site are three storey blocks of flats. The
proposed dwellings would be two storeys in height and the proposed ridge heights,
eaves height and plot widths of the dwellings would reflect the scale of the surrounding
residential properties. The front building line of the dwellings would be reflective of the
neighbouring terraces in Apsley Close
Design and Appearance
The proposed dwellings would have pitched roofs to a similar height of adjoining
dwellings in Apsley Court. Each dwelling house would incorporate a recessed front
entrance with an enclosed bin store adjacent to conceal refuse bins. The architecture
would lend the buildings a simple but robust character, with the elevations articulated by
subtle but sympathetic reveals.
The design and appearance of the proposed
development is considered to be acceptable, subject to a condition to secure final details
of proposed materials, which would be attached to the permission, should approval be
granted.
The proposed replacement bin store would be located to the rear of the existing pram
stores. It is considered given the overall modest scale the proposed bin store would be
in keeping with the surrounding area.
Landscaping
Policy DM 27 of the Harrow DMP LP (2013) states that: “Residential development
proposals that provide appropriate amenity space will be supported. The appropriate
form and amount of amenity space should be informed by
a. the location and dwelling mix;
b. the likely needs of future occupiers of the development;
c. the character and pattern of existing development in the area;
d. the need to safeguard the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers; and
e. the quality of the space proposed including landscaping (see Policy DM22 Trees and
Landscaping).”
Each dwellinghouse would have access to a private rear amenity space. The amount
and form of amenity space is considered to be acceptable in relation to the wider
character of the area. Though some soft landscaping would be removed along that strip
to the north of the site to re-provide car parking spaces, new soft landscaping would be
introduced to along the southern boundary. A condition is recommended to secure the
quality of this landscaping.
Policy DM 45 of the Harrow DMP LP (2013) outlines that bin and refuse storage must be
provided in such a way to minimise its visual impact and avoid nuisance to occupiers,
while providing a secure and convenient facility for occupiers and collection”. Refuse
storage for the proposed dwellings would be within an integral enclosure sited adjacent
to main entrance of each property which is considered to be acceptable.
In summary, it is considered that the design of proposed development would make a
positive contribution to the character of the area and would reinforce the positive aspects
of local distinctiveness. Officers consider the re-development of the site would provide
an increased sense of place, vibrancy and identity within the community and would
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
187
successfully integrate into the surrounding suburban context. The proposed buildings,
whilst of a more contemporary appearance, due to their scale, design and siting would
be sympathetic and complimentary to the adjacent surrounding residential dwellings.
As such, the proposal is considered to comply with The National Planning Policy
Framework (2012), policies 7.4B, 7.6B and 7.8 C and D of The London Plan (2015) core
policy CS1 B and D of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and policies DM1 and DM 7 of
the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013).
Residential Amenity
Policy 7.6 of The London Plan (2015) states that “Buildings and structures should not
cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the surrounding land and buildings,
particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and
microclimate”.
Policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013)
requires that: “All development and change of use proposals must achieve a high
standard of privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers”. “The assessment of the
design and layout of proposals will have regard to: “the massing, bulk, scale and height
of proposed buildings in relation to the location, the surroundings and any impact on
neighbouring occupiers”.
Amenity impacts in relation to scale, massing and siting
The separation distances between the proposed dwellings and the adjoining properties
in Holsworth Close and Canterbury Road are considered to be acceptable.
The
proposed dwellinghouses would be set a minimum of 8.5m from the rear boundary of
properties in Canterbury Road. It is acknowledged the new buildings will undoubtedly
change the views and outlook from a small number of surrounding properties. However,
the planning system is not able to safeguard or protect specific views from private
houses. The separation between the existing and proposed buildings has been set out
above and it is considered to be sufficient so as not to result in any undue harm on
neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of light, outlook and overshadowing and privacy.
The distances in relation to the properties to the north and south are considered to be
acceptable with regard to privacy impact.
With regard to No.15 Apsley Court, the proposed dwellings would result in a marginal
conflict with the horizontal 45 degree rule, as set out in the Council‟s adopted Residential
Design Guide SPD, in relation to this property (a conflict of some 500mm). Though the
development would result in a marginal conflict in this regard, the proposed development
is sited to the west of this property. Though the occupiers of No.15 Apsley Close would
experience a greater degree of enclosure that currently, light levels and outlook from this
property would not be unduly compromised due to the reasonable size of the garden of
this property and the orientation of the proposed development in relation to this property.
It is noted that no flank wall windows are proposed and a condition is recommended to
ensure that no windows are added in the future. In light of these factors, officers
consider that the development would not unduly impact on the occupiers of No.15
Apsley Court. It is noted that the occupiers of this property have not objected to the
proposal.
Vehicle Access, Noise and Disturbance
The proposed residential use is consistent with the surrounding land use. Although the
new dwellings may generate more activity outside of normal working hours and into the
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
188
evening and weekends, it is not expected that they would generate unacceptable levels
of activity or noise and disturbance, given the existence of similar residential properties
close.
Amenity Impacts on the Future Occupiers of the Dwellings
Policy DM 27 of the Harrow DMP LP (2013) states that: “Residential development
proposals that provide appropriate amenity space will be supported. The appropriate
form and amount of amenity space should be informed by
a. the location and dwelling mix;
b. the likely needs of future occupiers of the development;
c. the character and pattern of existing development in the area;
d. the need to safeguard the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers; and
e. the quality of the space proposed including landscaping (see Policy DM22 Trees and
Landscaping).”
As discussed above, all of the residential units will have access to their own private
amenity space which is considered to be appropriate in size and form for each of the
proposed properties and would accord within the minimum standards set out in the
Mayoral Housing SPG (2012).
Table 3.3 of the adopted London Plan (2015) specifies minimum Gross Internal Areas
(GIA) for residential units. Paragraph 3.36 of the London Plan (2015) specifies that these
are minimum sizes and should be exceeded where possible. The use of these
residential unit GIA‟s as minima is also reiterated in Appendix 1 of the Council‟s adopted
SPD.
In addition, paragraph 59 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)
states that local planning authorities should consider using design codes where they
could help deliver high quality outcomes. Policy 3.5C of The London Plan (2011) also
specifies that Boroughs should ensure that, amongst other things, new dwellings have
adequately sized rooms and convenient and efficient room layouts. In view of paragraph
59 of the NPPF and Policy 3.5C of The London Plan (2015), and when considering what
is an appropriate standard of accommodation and quality of design, the Council has due
regard to the Mayor of London‟s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)
(November 2012).
The room sizes of the houses are shown in the table below, along with the minimum
floor areas for rooms as recommended by the Housing Standards Policy Transition
Statement (May 2015):
Gross Internal Floor
Bedroom
Area
Housing Standards Policy 3 bedroom, 5 person Double 11.5sqm
Transition Statement (May (86 sqm)
Single 7.5sqm
2015)
Proposed Dwellinghouses
Double 1 – 11.7sqm
Double 2 – 11.7sqm
Single – 7.5 sqm
92.9 sqm
With reference to the above table, it is considered that adequate Gross Internal Area and
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
189
adequate room sizes of the dwellinghouses would result in an acceptable form of
accommodation. The development would also provide appropriate levels of built-in
storage.
Refuse
A refuse store will be provided for the dwellings adjacent to the front entrance which
provides a convenient place for collection. The refuse store would be a sufficient size to
accommodate three refuse containers which would provide sufficient capacity in
accordance with the Council‟s refuse standards. A further replacement bin store is
proposed for the surrounding flats. Officers consider that the replacement bin store
would be an improvement on the current situation.
In summary, officers consider that the proposal would accord with the National Planning
Policy Framework (2012), policies 3.5C and 7.6B of The London plan (2015), policies
DM 1 and DM 27 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013),
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing Design Guide (2012) and adopted
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD): Residential Design Guide (2010).
Traffic Parking and Servicing
The London Plan (2015) policies 6.3, 6.9 and 6.13 seek to regulate parking in order to
minimise additional car travel and encourage use of more sustainable means of travel.
Core Strategy Policy CS 1 R and policy DM 42 of the Development Management DPD,
also seeks to provide a managed response to car use and traffic growth associated with
new development.
The site is currently occupied by some garages and as such levels of traffic generation
are not expected to be significantly different from the previous use on the site. It is
noted that objections and a petition have been received regarding car parking and
highway safety. However, the highways authority have raised no objection and state
that this location has very low traffic flows and low speeds and have no concerns
regarding the proposed parking layout which maximises the space available. Though
some concerns have been raised by local residents, the area does not display stress in
relation to the availability of car parking spaces and the development does not therefore
raise concern in relation to highway convenience.
Overall, officers consider that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the free
flow of traffic or highway and pedestrian safety. In view of the above, it is considered
that the proposal is acceptable in relation to policies 6.3, 6.9 and 6.13 of The London
Plan (2015), policy CS1 R of the Harrow CS (2012) and policy DM 42 of the Harrow
DMP LP (2013).
Flood Risk and Drainage
The application site is located in a critical drainage area of Harrow. Policy DM10 was
introduced to address surface water run-off and flood risk from developments. The
application would result in a net increase in development footprint and there is the
potential for surface water run-off rates to increase. It is noted that objections have been
received regarding drainage issues at the site. However, the Drainage authority has
raised no objection and has recommended conditions.
Subject to the above, the development is considered to fulfil the objectives of the NPPF
concerning managed impacts upon flood risk and would satisfy London Plan (2015)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
190
policies 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14, policy CS1 U of the Harrow Core Strategy, and policy DM
10 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
Accessibility
The London Plan (2015) requires all new development in London to achieve the highest
standards of accessibility and inclusive design as outlined under policy 7.2. Policy DM 2
of the Harrow DMLP (2013) seeks to ensure that buildings and public spaces are readily
accessible to all
The submitted plans and accompanying Design and Access Statement indicates that the
proposed dwelling houses would meet “accessible and adaptable” objectives. It is
evident from the plans that external door widths and turning circles in the proposed
dwellings would be sufficient to accommodate wheelchair users and to meet these
Standards.
A condition is recommended to be attached to the permission, should
approval be granting which would require the dwellings to be built to these standards.
Subject to this, the proposed dwellings would provide an acceptable level of accessibility
in accordance with the above policies.
Sustainable Development
London Plan policy 5.2 „Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions‟ defines the established
hierarchy for assessing the sustainability aspects of new development. This policy sets
out the „lean, clean, green‟ approach, which is expanded in London Plan policies 5.3 to
5.11. Policy 5.2 B outlines the targets for carbon dioxide emissions reduction in
buildings. These targets are expressed as minimum improvements over the Target
Emission Rate (TER) outlined in the national Building Regulations.
Policy DM 12 outlines that “The design and layout of development proposals should:
a. utilise natural systems such as passive solar design and, wherever possible,
incorporate
high performing energy retention materials, to supplement the benefits of traditional
measures such as insulation and double glazing;
b. make provision for natural ventilation and shading to prevent internal overheating;
c. incorporate techniques that enhance biodiversity, such as green roofs and green walls
(such techniques will benefit other sustainability objectives including surface water
attenuation and the avoidance of internal and urban over-heating); and
d. where relevant, the design and layout of buildings should incorporate measures to
mitigate
any significant noise or air pollution arising from the future use of the development.”
Following on from this, Harrow Council has an adopted Supplementary Planning
Document in relation to Sustainable Building Design (2009).
The submitted Design and Access Statement states that the proposed terrace would be
built to comply with Building Regulations Part L. It is considered by officers that this
level of sustainable development would be acceptable.
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
Policy 7.3 of The London Plan (2015) seeks to ensure that developments should
address security issues and provide safe and secure environments.
The development would have adequate surveillance of the public realm from the front
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
191
elevation. The shared communal open space would also be directly overlooked from the
properties which will be an improvement compared to the existing open space on the
site which is currently more isolated from the surrounding properties. It is considered
that the site could be made secure by way of an appropriate condition for details of
security measures to be submitted and agreed.
As such, this condition is
recommended, should approval be granted. Subject to the imposition of such a
condition, It is deemed that this application would not have any detrimental impact upon
community safety and is therefore acceptable in this regard.
Equalities and Human Rights
The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the
processing of the application and the preparation of this report.
In determining this planning application the Council has regard to its equalities
obligations under section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010. For the purposes of this report
there are no adverse equalities issues arising from this proposal. However, it is noted
that equality impact assessments play an important role in the formulation of planning
policies; however their use in respect of this specific application is very much the
exception rather than the norm. Taking proper account of the guidance contained in the
London Plan Supplementary Guidance on Planning for Equality and Diversity in London
(and in particular paragraph 2.6) the Council considers that there is no requirement for a
Race Equalities Impact Assessment.
Consultation Responses
 Lack of parking will create overcrowding and possible parking disputes
The Highway Authority has reviewed the existing and proposed situations with
regard to parking availability. Given the area does not display a parking stress
currently and the additional development would not be substantial, consider that
the development would not adversely affect highway convenience
 Proposed relocation of the bin store is not acceptable due to health and safety as the
current bin area is over used and not cleaned by the Council.
The bin store proposed is sited a reasonable distance from neighbouring
properties and would only be moved over a short distance. The revised location
would provide easier access to existing pram stores and is considered acceptable
in this regard.
CONCLUSION
The development would support the Council‟s aspirations to make more effective use of
its assets and crucially deliver new homes for the vulnerable residents of the Borough.
The proposal represents a composed, proportionate and sympathetic response to the
site constraints, whilst providing a high quality of contemporary architecture. The
development would respect neighbouring amenities and highway safety and
convenience. Weighing up the development plan policies and proposals then, and other
material considerations, including comments received in response to notification and
consultation as set out above, this application is recommended for grant.
CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission.
REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
192
2 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans and documents, details and
samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted
below shall be submitted to, provided on site, and approved in writing by, the Local
Planning Authority before the commencement of any work above DPC level of the
buildings hereby permitted is carried out.
a: the external surfaces of the buildings
b: the ground surfacing
c: the boundary treatment
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall
thereafter be retained.
REASON: To safeguard the character and appearance of the locality, in accordance with
policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
3 Save where varied by the other planning conditions comprising this planning
permission, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved plans: HO PL001 Rev A; HO PL002 Rev A; HO PL003; HO PL004 Rev B;
HO PL005 Rev A; HO PL006; HO PL007; HO PL008 Rev A; Design and Access
Statement
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
4 The development of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted shall not be commenced
until works for the disposal of surface water, surface water attenuation and storage
works have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with these details and shall
thereafter be retained.
REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, reduce and mitigate the effects of
flood risk in accordance with policy DM10 of the Councils Development Management
Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid potentially
unenforceable conditions.
5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order
with or without modification), no development which would otherwise fall within Classes
A, B, D, E and F in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out in relation to
the dwellinghouses hereby permitted without the prior written permission of the local
planning authority.
REASON: To safeguard the character of the area by restricting the amount of site
coverage and size of the dwellinghouses in relation to the size of the plot and availability
of amenity space and to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents, in accordance
with policy DM 1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
6 The refuse bins shall be stored at all times, other than on collection days, in the
designated refuse storage area, as shown on the approved drawing.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the locality, as required by policy DM 45 of
the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013).
7 Before the hard surfacing hereby permitted is brought into use the surfacing shall
EITHER be constructed from porous materials, for example, gravel, permeable block
paving or porous asphalt, OR provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
193
hard surfacing to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the site.
REASON: To ensure that adequate and sustainable drainage facilities are provided, and
to prevent any increased risk of flooding in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Harrow
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
8 The development hereby permitted, as detailed in the submitted and approved
drawings, shall be built to “accessible and adaptable” standards as set out at standard
M4(2) of the Building Regulations and thereafter retained to those standards.
REASON: To ensure provision of accessible and adaptable' standard housing in
accordance with policy DM 2 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local
Plan (2013).
9 Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, the development hereby permitted
shall not commence until a tree protection plan for the development has been submitted
to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The erection of fencing for
the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved
plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to
the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment,
machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be
stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition, and the ground
levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without
the written consent of the local planning authority.
REASON: The existing trees represent an important amenity feature which the local
planning authority considers should be protected, in accordance with Policy DM22 of the
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT to ensure a satisfactory form of
development and avoid potentially unenforceable conditions.
10 A landscape management plan, including species numbers/locations, long term
design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all
communal landscape areas shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority prior to the occupation of the development. The landscape
management plan shall be carried out as approved. Details are required prior to
occupation to ensure a satisfactory form of development.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the
appearance of the development in accordance with policy DM22 of The Development
Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
Details are required PRIOR TO THE
OCCUPATION to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid potentially
unenforceable conditions.
11 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall
be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the
building, or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any existing or
new trees or shrubs which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the
development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be
replaced in the next planting season, with others of a similar size and species, unless
the local authority agrees any variation in writing.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the
appearance of the development in accordance with policy DM22 of The Development
Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
194
12 Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted, measures to minimise the
risk of crime in a visually acceptable manner and meet the specific security needs of the
application site / development shall be installed in accordance with details to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Any such measures should follow the design principles set out in the relevant Design
Guides
on
the
Secured
by
Design
website:
http://www.securedbydesign.com/guides/index.aspx and shall include the following
requirements:
Windows: Ground floor or accessible windows certificated to PAS24:2012 (or STS 204)
with Glazing to include one pane of laminated glass to BS EN 356 level P1A
Doors: External Doors certificated to PAS24:2012, STS 201, LPS 1175 SR2 or STS 202
BR2
Following implementation the works shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: In the interests of creating safer and more sustainable communities and to
safeguard amenity by reducing the risk of crime and the fear of crime, in accordance
with Policy DM 2 of the Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013),
and Section 17of the Crime & Disorder Act 1998. Details are required PRIOR TO THE
OCCUPATION to ensure a satisfactory form of development and avoid potentially
unenforceable conditions.
INFORMATIVES
1 The following policies are relevant to this decision:
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)
The London Plan (2011) (consolidated with alterations since 2011)(2015):
3.3 – Increasing Housing Supply
3.5 – Quality and Design of Housing Developments
3.8 – Housing Choice
5.2 – Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions
5.3 – Sustainable Design and Construction
5.12 – Flood Risk Management
5.13 – Sustainable Drainage
6.3 – Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity
6.9 – Cycling
6.13 – Parking
7.1 – Building London‟s Neighbourhoods and Communities
7.2 – An Inclusive Environment
7.3 – Designing Out Crime
7.4 – Local Character
7.6 – Architecture
7.21 – Trees and Woodlands
Harrow Core Strategy 2012
Core Policy CS 1 – Overarching Policy Objectives
Harrow Development Management Polices Local Plan (2013)
Policy DM 1 - Achieving a High Standard of Development
Policy DM 2 – Achieving Lifetime Neighbourhoods
Policy DM 10 – On Site Water Management and Surface Water Attenuation
Policy DM 12 – Sustainable Design and Layout
Policy DM 14 – Renewable Energy Technology
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
195
Policy DM 18 – Open Space
Policy DM 20 – Protection of Biodiversity and Access to Nature
Policy DM 21 –Enhancement of Biodiversity and Access to Nature
Policy DM 22 – Trees and Landscaping
Policy DM 23 – Streetside Greenness and Forecourt Greenery
Policy DM 24 – Housing Mix
Policy DM 27 – Amenity Space
Policy DM 42 – Parking Standards
Policy DM 44 - Servicing
Policy DM 45 – Waste Management
Relevant Supplementary Documents
Supplementary Planning Document – Access for All (2006)
Supplementary Planning Document: Garden Land Development (2013).
Supplementary Planning Document – Residential Design Guide (2010)
Supplementary Planning Document - Accessible Homes (2010)
Mayor Of London, Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (November 2012)
Housing Standards Policy Transition Statement (May 2015)
Code of Practice for Storage and Collection of Refuse and Materials for Recycling in
Domestic Properties (2008)
2 CONSIDERATE CONTRACTOR CODE OF PRACTICE
The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements in the attached Considerate
Contractor Code of Practice, in the interests of minimising any adverse effects arising
from building operations, and in particular the limitations on hours of working.
3 PARTY WALL ACT:
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify and obtain formal
agreement from adjoining owner(s) where the building owner intends to carry out
building work which involves:
1. work on an existing wall shared with another property;
2. building on the boundary with a neighbouring property;
3. excavating near a neighbouring building,
and that work falls within the scope of the Act.
Procedures under this Act are quite separate from the need for planning permission or
building regulations approval.
“The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: Explanatory booklet” is available free of charge from:
Communities and Local Government Publications, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB
Please quote Product code: 02 BR 00862 when ordering
Also available for download from the CLG website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/133214.pdf
Tel: 0870 1226 236
Fax: 0870 1226 237
Textphone: 0870 1207 405
E-mail: communities@twoten.com
4 COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING CONDITIONS
IMPORTANT: Compliance With Planning Conditions Requiring Submission and
Approval of Details Before Development Commences
- You will be in breach of planning permission if you start development without complying
with a condition requiring you to do something before you start. For example, that a
scheme or details of the development must first be approved by the Local Planning
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
196
Authority.
- Carrying out works in breach of such a condition will not satisfy the requirement to
commence the development within the time permitted.
- Beginning development in breach of a planning condition will invalidate your planning
permission.
- If you require confirmation as to whether the works you have carried out are
acceptable, then you should apply to the Local Planning Authority for a certificate of
lawfulness.
5 DUTY TO BE POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE
Statement under Article 31 (1) (cc) of The Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended).
This decision has been taken in accordance with paragraphs 187-189 of The National
Planning Policy Framework. Pre-application advice was sought and provided and the
submitted application was in accordance with that advice.
6 INFORM61_M
Please be advised that approval of this application, (by PINS if allowed on Appeal
following the Refusal by Harrow Council), attracts a liability payment of £6,475 of
Community Infrastructure Levy. This charge has been levied under Greater London
Authority CIL charging schedule and s211 of the Planning Act 2008.
Harrow Council as CIL collecting authority on commencement of development will be
collecting the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
Your proposal is subject to a CIL Liability Notice indicating a levy of £6,510 for the
application, based on the levy rate for Harrow of £35/sqm and the stated floorspace of
185sqm
You are advised to visit the planning portal website where you can download the
appropriate document templates.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil
7 INFORMATIVE:
Harrow has a Community Infrastructure Levy which will apply Borough wide for certain
uses of over 100sqm gross internal floor space. The CIL has been examined by the
Planning Inspectorate and found to be legally compliant. It will be charged from the 1st
October 2013. Any planning application determined after this date will be charged
accordingly.
Harrow's Charges are:
Residential (Use Class C3) - £110 per sqm;
Hotels (Use Class C1), Residential Institutions except Hospitals, (Use Class C2),
Student Accommodation, Hostels and HMOs (Sui generis)- £55 per sqm;
Retail (Use Class A1), Financial & Professional Services (Use Class A2), Restaurants
and Cafes (Use Class A3) Drinking Establishments (Use Class A4) Hot Food
Takeaways (Use Class A5) - £100 per sqm
All other uses - Nil.
The Harrow CIL Liability for this development is: £20,460.
Plan Nos: HO PL001 Rev A; HO PL002 Rev A; HO PL003; HO PL004 Rev B; HO PL005
Rev A; HO PL006; HO PL007; HO PL008 Rev A; Design and Access Statement
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
197
LAND AT HOLSWORTH CLOSE, HARROW
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
198
ITEM NO:
2/05
ADDRESS:
15 COURTENAY AVENUE, HARROW WEALD
REFERENCE:
P/0102/16
DESCRIPTION:
CONVERSION OF DWELLINGHOUSE TO TWO FLATS; SINGLE
STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION; REAR DORMER;
THREE ROOFLIGHTS IN FRONT ROOFSLOPE; SEPARATE
AMENITY SPACE; BOUNDARY TREATMENT; LANDSCAPING;
BIN / CYCLE STORAGE AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS (PART
DEMOLITION OF SIDE EXTENSION).
WARD:
HATCH END
APPLICANT:
MR AMIR SAFDAR
AGENT:
ICON DESIGN STUDIO LTD
CASE OFFICER:
HELEN FADIPE
EXPIRY DATE:
21 MARCH 2016
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT planning permission for the development described in the application and
submitted plans, subject to condition(s).
INFORMATION
This application is reported to planning committee due to the recent refusal of a similar
application on the same road (157 Courtenay Road application reference P/4338/15) for
conversion to two flats. That application was referred to committee due to the public
interest received under part 1, Proviso E of the scheme of delegation dated 29 th May
2013. This application is reported to the Planning Committee as it is potentially
controversial (it raises similar issues) and is therefore excluded by Proviso E of the
Scheme of Delegation dated 29th March 2013.
Statutory Return Type: Minor Development
Council Interest: None
Gross Floorspace: Approx 142.0 sqm
Net additional Floorspace: 42 sqm
GLA Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Contribution (provisional): £1,470.00 (based on
an additional net floorspace of 42sqm)
Harrow CIL: £4,260.00 (based on an additional net floorspace of 42sqm)
Site Description
 This application concerns a semi-detached dwellinghouse on the west side of
Courtenay Avenue.
 The immediate surrounding area consists of 1950‟s style semi-detached
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
199






dwellinghouses.
The application site and neighbouring houses are set back from the main
carriageway and are served by a small service road which is used for residents parking
The existing dwellinghouse benefits from a single side extension.
The adjacent semi-detached dwellinghouse has not previously been extended.
The application site benefits from a generous rear garden
The site is located in a critical drainage area of Harrow
The site is not located in a conservation area
Proposal Details
 It is proposed to convert the existing semi-detached dwellinghouse into two flats, in
association with the proposed extensions.
 It is proposed to convert the ground floor into a two bedroom, three persons flat
 It is proposed to convert the first floor and loft of the existing dwellinghouse into a
three persons, two bedroom flat
 The proposed conversion of the existing dwellinghouse into flats includes a pitch roof
single storey rear extension which would be 3.0m in depth (reducing to 2.0m in depth
adjacent o No.17) and 3.30m at its highest point and 2.5m at the eaves of the roof.
 It is also proposed to convert the existing loft space into habitable space with window
in the rear box dormer
 It is proposed to store bins at the rear of the property
 It is proposed to incorporate secured cycle storage in the extended side extension.
The secured bicycle storage will be for both flats.
 It is proposed to provide amenity space for both flats by sub-dividing the front and rear
garden space
Revisions to Previous Application
 N/A
Relevant History
 N/A
Pre-Application Discussion (Ref.)
 None
Applicant Submission Documents
 Design & Access Statement
Consultations
Hatch End Association – No Objections
Advertisement
Site Notice – Expiry – 24 February 2016
Notifications
Sent: 5
Replies: 0
Expiry: 19 February 2016
Addresses Consulted
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
200
11 Courtenay Avenue, Harrow Weald, HA3 5JH
17 Courtenay Avenue, Harrow Weald, HA3 5JH
1 Secker Crescent, harrow, HA3 5LZ
3 Secker Crescent, Harrow, HA3 5LZ
5 Secker Crescent, Harrow, HA3 5LZ
Summary of Responses
 N/A
Appraisal
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:
„If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to be
made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.‟
The Government has issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which
consolidates national planning policy and is a material consideration in the determination
of this application.
In this instance, the Development Plan comprises The London Plan (consolidated with
amendments since 2011) (2015) and the Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF
comprises The Harrow Core Strategy 2012, the Development Management Policies Local
Plan (DMP) 2013, the Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP) 2013 and Harrow Local Area
Map (LAP) 2013
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of the Development
Design, Layout, Character of the Area and Amenity
Residential Amenity
Accessibility
Traffic and Parking
Drainage and Flood Risk
Human Rights and Equalities
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
Consultation Responses
Principle of the Development
Policy 3.8 of The London Plan (2015) encourages the borough to provide a range of
housing choices in order to take account of the various different groups who require
different types of housing. Further to this, Core Policy CS1 (I) states that „New residential
development shall result in a mix of housing in terms of type, size and tenure across the
Borough and within neighbourhoods, to promote housing choice, meet local needs, and to
maintain mixed and sustainable communities‟. Having regard to the London Plan and the
Council‟s policies and guidelines, it is considered that the proposed conversion would
constitute an increase in housing stock within the borough in terms of unit numbers and
an improvement in the quality of accommodation, and would therefore be acceptable in
principle.
Design, Layout, Character of the Area and Amenity
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 advises at paragraph 58 that planning
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
201
policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments should optimise the
potential of the site to accommodate development and respond to local character and
history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials.
Policy 7.4B of The London Plan (consolidated with amendments since 2011) (2015)
states that „Buildings, streets and open spaces should provide a high quality design
response that (amongst other factors), (a) has regard to the pattern and grain of the
existing spaces and streets in orientation, scale, proportion and mass, (d) allows existing
buildings and structures that make a positive contribution to the character of a place to
influence the future character of the area, (e) is informed by the surrounding historic
environment. Core Policy CS1.B of the adopted Harrow Core Strategy 2012 states that all
developments shall respond positively to the local and historic context.
Policy DM1 of the Council‟s Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013 states
that „All development and change of use proposals must achieve a high standard of
design and layout. Proposals which fail to achieve a high standard of design and layout,
or which are detrimental to local character and appearance, will be resisted‟
The proposed conversion of the existing dwellinghouse into two flats would involve a roof
extension, rear and side single storey extensions. The extensions would be proportionate
and subordinate extensions, reflecting the character and design of the original building,
which would accord with Council‟s SPD: Residential Design Guide. The development
would maintain its appearance as a single dwellinghouse. In this case it is considered that
the proposal for the conversion of the host dwellinghouse into two flats would have a
satisfactory impact on the character of the area and the streetscene.
Internal Design and Layout of New Dwellings
Policy 3.5C of The London Plan requires all new residential development to provide,
amongst other things, accommodation which is adequate to meet people‟s needs. In this
regard, minimum gross internal areas (GIA) are required for different types of
accommodation, and new residential accommodation should have a layout that provides
a functional space. Table 3.3 of The London Plan specifies minimum GIAs for residential
units and advises that these minimum sizes should be exceeded where possible. The use
of these residential unit GIA‟s as minima is also reiterated in Appendix 1 of the Residential
Design Guide SPD. Further detailed room standards are set out in the Mayors Housing
Supplementary Planning Guidance 2012.
On 25 March 2015 through a written ministerial statement, the Government introduced
new technical housing standards in England and detailed how these would be applied
through planning policy.
The national standards came into effect on 1st October and therefore all planning
applications submitted after this date would be considered against the new national
standards instead of the current London Plan standards. Furthermore, the imposition of
any conditions requiring compliance with specific policy standards relating to new housing
would need to be considered against the national standards.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
202
From the 1st of October 2015, relevant London Plan policy and associated guidance in the
Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) should be interpreted by reference to
the nearest equivalent new national technical standard. The Mayor intends to adopt the
new standards through a minor alteration to the London Plan. In the interim the Housing
Standards Policy Transition Statement (October 2015) should be applied in assessing
new housing development proposals. This is also set out in the draft Interim Housing
SPG.
Therefore from October 2015, policy 3.2 (c) requires that table 3.3 to be substituted with
Table 1 of the nationally described space standards, which is set out in the table below.
Policy 3.8 (c) of the London Plan relating to Housing Choice, from the 1 October should
be interpreted as 90% of homes should meeting building regulations M4 (2) – „accessible
and adopted dwellings‟. Policy 3.8 (d) will require 10% of new housing to meeting building
regulations M4 93) – „wheelchair user dwellings‟.
Bedrooms
Bed
spaces
1b
2b
3b
4b
5b
6b
Minimum Floor
Area Required
Ground Floor Flat
2b 3p
First Floor Flat
2b 2p
Minimum GIA (sqm)
2 storey
dwellings
1p
2p
3p
4p
4p
5p
6p
5p
6p
7p
8p
6p
7p
8p
7p
1 storey
dwellings
39 (37) *
50
61
70
74
86
95
90
99
108
117
103
112
121
116
58
70
79
84
93
102
97
106
115
124
110
119
128
123
90
99
108
103
112
121
130
116
125
134
129
8p
125
132
138
Gross Internal
Floor Area
2b 3p = 61 sqm
1b 2p = 50 sqm
61 sqm
81 sqm
3 storey
dwellings
Built – in
storage (sqm)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Bedroom
Storage
Double (11.5 sqm)
Single (7.5 sqm)
2b= 2.0 sq. m
1b= 1.50 sqm
12.11 sqm
8.1 sqm
21.42 sqm
8.03 Sqm
2 sqm
3.65 sqm
The proposed conversion of the dwellinghouse into two flats would result in 2 x 2
bedroom 3 persons flat. The overall gross internal floor area of the house would meet the
required floor areas set out in the Mayor of London‟s Housing SPG.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
203
As part of the conversion of the existing dwellinghouse into two flats it is proposed to
convert the existing loft space into a habitable bedroom with en-suite. Paragraph 5.4.1 of
the Housing Standards Policy Transition Statement (October 2015) states that a minimum
2.5m for a least 75% of the dwelling area is strongly encouraged so that the new housing
is of adequate quality, especially in terms of light, ventilation and sense of space. In
addition to the dormer windows, the proposal includes three roof lights to the front roof
slope of the building.
Proposed section plans states that the total height of the proposed loft room would be
2.20m.
Therefore, the proposed floor to ceiling heights would be under that
recommended by the Housing Standards. However, the standards recognise that these
floor-to-ceiling heights may not be achievable in existing buildings and local planning
authorities may accept lower ceiling heights. Given, the principal living areas of the flat
would achieve the standard, the minor shortfall is considered acceptable in this instance.
The applicant has indicated storage space for both flats without compromising the quality
of internal space or circulation.
Future Occupier Amenity- Light, Outlook and Privacy
Light - All habitable rooms to both flats would have an acceptable level of natural light and
outlook. These would be either facing towards the street on Courtenay Avenue or the rear
garden.
It is noted that the proposed kitchen for the ground floor flat would not have any direct
source of sunlight, which is not encouraged within the adopted SPD. However, the
proposed kitchen would be of an open plan nature with the living area which would have
two full sized windows. Therefore while the degree of natural light to the kitchen is not
acceptable, due to the other site circumstances this would not in itself constitute a reason
for refusal.
Policy DM1 of the adopted Development Management Policies Local Plan states that
noise transfer between dwellings can be as critical to privacy as overlooking. Whilst the
quality of sound insulation is a matter for Building Regulations, the internal layout of
rooms can help mitigate transfer of unwanted noise between homes and differing uses.
Paragraph 5.12 highlights the importance of the vertical stacking of rooms between flats
which should ensure that bedrooms do not overlap living room, kitchens and bathroom on
other floors.
The proposed relationship between the two flats would not give rise to any conflicts with
sensitive rooms such as bedrooms.
In terms of privacy, two additional flank windows are proposed as part of the flat
conversion. The windows will serve the open plan living room / kitchen/ diner. The
windows are on the ground floor and will serve the open plan kitchen / diner. There is a
1.8m fence between both properties and it is not likely that it would lead to overlooking.
There will be a requirement for the applicant to maintain the boundary fence at all times.
Amenity space
Policy DM27 of the DMP requires new development „to make adequate arrangements for
the provision of amenity space for future occupiers of the development‟.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
204
The proposal to convert the existing dwellinghouse into two flats would include the subdivision of the rear garden to allow access to amenity space for both flats. Therefore this
element of the proposal would be satisfactory and would accord with paragraph 5.16 of
the Harrow Residential Design Guide SPD (2010).
Front & Rear Garden Treatment
The existing front and rear garden is to be subdivided to provide separate sections for
each flat. Additional planting will be carried out to the front garden to fence off each
section. At the rear, a 1.8m high timber fence would be used to partition of each section of
the garden. Currently both the front and rear gardens are not well tended. Any planting to
the front garden would soften the frontage providing street scene impact in character with
the area and enhance the biodiversity. A condition has therefore been attached to ensure
that the proposal relating to the front and rear gardens are implemented.
Bin storage
The supporting documents and plans provided with the application state that the bins
would be stored in a wheelie double bin storage shed located at the rear of the property.
Therefore, it is considered that the proposed location of the bins would be satisfactory and
would be compliant with paragraph 5.8 of the Harrow Residential Design Guide SPD
(2010). A condition of development is recommended that requires bins to be maintained
in this location at all times, other than on collection days.
It is considered that the proposed development would comply with policy 7.4 of The
London Plan (consolidated with amendments since 2011) (2015), policies DM1, DM2 and
DM27 of the Harrow DMP (2013), and paragraphs 4.61, 4.63 of the Residential Design
Guide SPD (2010).
Residential Amenity
Policy 7.6B, subsection D, of The London Plan (consolidated with amendments since
2011)(2015) states that new buildings and structures should not cause unacceptable
harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in
relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate. Following on from this, Policy
DM1 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan states that „all development
and change of use proposals must achieve a high standard of privacy and amenity.
Proposals that would be detrimental to the privacy and amenity of neighbouring
occupiers, or that would fail to achieve satisfactory privacy and amenity for future
occupiers of development, will be resisted‟.
The proposed single storey rear extension would accord with paragraphs of 6.59 and 6.63
of the adopted Residential Design Guide SPD in terms of depth of projection and height
respectively. As such, no undue impacts on neighbouring occupiers in terms of
overshadowing, overbearing impacts or loss of light would occur. The windows proposed
in the flank walls will not cause undue loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers.
The proposed alteration to the rear roofslope to form a rear dormer would not impact on
the amenity of the neighbouring properties.
Any overlooking from the windows on the proposed rear dormer would be at oblique
angles over the neighbouring gardens and would not be demonstrably worse than the
existing relationship with regards to overlooking in this suburban location.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
205
In summary, it is considered that the proposal would comply with policies 7.4B and 7.6.B
of the London Plan (consolidated with amendments since 2011) (2015), policy CS1.B of
the CS and policy DM1 of the DMP and the adopted SPD: Residential Design Guide
(2010).
Though is acknowledged that the development would give rise to a marginal increase in
the use of the premises with two households rather than one, movements and associated
disturbance would remain residential in nature and any increase in activity around the
premises would be minor and would not cause unreasonable disturbance to neighbouring
occupiers.
In summary, it is considered that the proposal would comply with policies 7.4B and 7.6.B
of the London Plan (consolidated with amendments since 2011) (2015), policy CS1.B of
the CS and policy DM1 of the DMP and the adopted SPD: Residential Design Guide
(2010).
Accessibility
Core Policy CS1.K of the Harrow Core Strategy and Policies 3.8, 7.1 and 7.2 of The
London Plan (2015) require all new housing to be built to Lifetime Homes Standards. This
has been replaced by New National Standards which require 90% of homes to meet
Building regulation M4 (2) - „accessible and adaptable dwellings‟.
A condition has been attached to ensure that the proposed dwellings will meet regulation
M4 (2) of the Building Regulations which would secure an appropriate standard for future
occupiers and make the units accessible to all.
Traffic and Parking
It is considered that the proposal would not result in a substantial increase in the intensity
of use of the property resulting in any harmful impacts on local traffic conditions or
highway safety. The application seeks to provide secured cycle spaces for future
occupiers.
Drainage and Flood Risk
The application site is located in a critical drainage area of Harrow. Policy DM10 was
introduced to address surface water run-off and flood risk from developments. The
application would result in a net increase in development footprint and there is the
potential for surface water run off rates to increase. In order to address this issue it is
considered necessary to attach an informative to this permission.
Human Rights and Equalities
The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the
processing of the application and the preparation of this report.
In determining this planning application the Council has regard to its equalities obligations
under section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010. For the purposes of this report there are no
adverse equalities issues arising from this proposal. However, it is noted that equality
impact assessments play an important role in the formulation of planning policies;
however their use in respect of this specific application is very much the exception rather
than the norm. Taking proper account of the guidance contained in the London Plan
Supplementary Guidance on Planning for Equality and Diversity in London (and in
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
206
particular paragraph 2.6) the Council considers that there is no requirement for a Race
Equalities Impact Assessment.
S17 Crime & Disorder Act
It is considered that the proposed development would not adversely impact upon
community safety issues and so it would comply with policy 7.3 of The London Plan
(consolidated with amendments since 2011) (2015).
Consultation Responses
N/A
CONCLUSION
The development would add to the housing provision and choice within the borough and
would have a satisfactory impact on the character and appearance of the property and the
area. Furthermore, the development would not unduly impact on the amenity of the
neighbouring occupiers.
For all the reasons considered above, and weighing up the development plan policies and
proposals and other material considerations, this application is recommended for grant.
CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this permission.
REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990.
2 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions
hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
REASON: To match the appearance of the original dwelling and to safeguard the
appearance of the locality to comply with core policy CS 1B of the Harrow Core Strategy
2012 and policy DM 1 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following
approved plans: Design and Access Statement; Site Plan; ICON-HR-1,
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
4 The development hereby permitted shall be constructed to the specifications of: “Part M,
M4 (2), Category 2: Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings” of the Building Regulations
2013 and thereafter retained in that form.
REASON: To ensure that the development is capable of meeting „Accessible and
Adaptable Dwellings‟ standards in accordance with policies 3.5 and 3.8 of The London
Plan, policy CS1.K of The Harrow Core Strategy 2012 and policies DM1 and DM2 of the
Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
5 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the timber fencing
indicated on the submitted plans in the rear garden and on the boundaries with No.‟s 11
and 17 Courtenay Avenue has been erected.
REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring and future residents, thereby
according with policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
6 The development hereby permitted shall not proceed 150mm above ground level until
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
207
there has been submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority, a revised
scheme of hard and soft landscape works which shall include details for boundary
treatments. Soft landscape works shall include: planting plans, and schedules of plants,
noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the
appearance of the development in accordance with policy DM22 of The Development
Management Policies Local Plan 2013. Details are required prior to the development
proceeding beyond damp course level as the approval of details beyond this point would
be likely to be unenforceable.
7 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be
carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the
building, or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any existing or
new trees or shrubs which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the
development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be
replaced in the next planting season, with others of a similar size and species, unless the
local authority agrees any variation in writing.
REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the
appearance of the development in accordance with policy DM22 of The Development
Management Policies Local Plan 2013.
INFORMATIVES
1 The following policies are relevant to this decision.
National Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
The London Plan (consolidated with amendments since 2011) (2015)
3.3 Increasing Housing Supply
3.4 Optimising Housing Potential
3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments
3.8 Housing Choice
6.9 Cycling
7.2 An Inclusive Environment
7.4.B Local Character
7.6.B Architecture
The Harrow Core Strategy 2012
CS1.B Local Character
CS1.K Housing
Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan 2013
DM1 Achieving a High Standard of Development
DM2 Achieving Lifetime Neighbourhoods
DM26 Conversion of Houses and other Residential Premises
DM27 Amenity Space
Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents
Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Guide 2010
London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2012)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
208
Housing Standards Policy Transition Statement (October 2015)
2 INFORM_PF2
Grant without pre-application advice
Statement under Article 31 (1) (cc) of The Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (as amended)
This decision has been taken in accordance with paragraphs 187-189 of The National
Planning Policy Framework. Harrow has a pre-application advice service and actively
encourages applicants to use this service.
Please note this for future reference prior to submitting any future planning applications.
3 INFORM23_M - Considerate Contractor Code of Practice
The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements in the attached Considerate
Contractor Code of Practice, in the interests of minimising any adverse effects arising
from building operations, and in particular the limitations on hours of working.
(Include on all permissions involving building works where they could affect a public
highway)
4 INFORM32_M – The Party Wall etc Act 1996
The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 requires a building owner to notify and obtain formal
agreement from adjoining owner(s) where the building owner intends to carry out building
work which involves:
1. work on an existing wall shared with another property
2. building on the boundary with a neighbouring building
3. excavating near a neighbouring building,
and that work falls within the scope of the Act.
Procedures under this Act are quite separate from the need for planning permission or
building regulations approval.
“The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: Explanatory booklet” is available free of charge from:
Communities and Local Government Publications, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB.
Please quote Product Code:02 BR 00862 when ordering
Also available for download from the CLG website:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/133214.pdf
Tel: 0870 1226 236; Fax: 0870 1226 237; Textphone: 0870 1207 405
E-mail: communities@twoten.com
Plan Nos: Design and Access Statement; Site Plan; ICON-HR-1 Revisions A, B, C.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
209
15 COURTENAY AVENUE, HARROW WEALD
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
210
SECTION 3 - OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL
None.
SECTION 4 - CONSULTATIONS FROM NEIGHBOURING AUTHORITIES
None.
SECTION 5 - PRIOR APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
None.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Committee
Wednesday 16 March 2016
211