Major Applications 1/01 Txu Site, Roxeth Green Avenue

SECTION 1 - MAJOR APPLICATIONS

1/01 TXU SITE, ROXETH GREEN AVENUE & BIRO HOUSE, P/327/04/COU/GM SOUTH HARROW, 110 STANLEY ROAD Ward: ROXBOURNE

OUTLINE: REDEVELOPMENT FOR B1 (BUSINESS) USE AND LIVE/WORK UNITS WITH PARKING (REVISED).

KENNETH W REED & ASSOCIATES for ROXSTAN LTD

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 1337/8A

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s):-

1 Time Limit - Outline Permission 2 Approval of the details shown below (the "reserved matters") shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced: (a) siting of the building(s) (b) design of the building(s) (c) external appearance of the building(s) (e) landscaping of the site REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3 Affordable Housing (33%) 4 No demolition or site works in connection with the development hereby permitted shall commence before:- (b) the boundary. of the site is enclosed by a close boarded fence to a minimum height of 2 metres. Such fencing shall remain until works and clearance have been completed, and the development is ready for occupation. REASON: In the interests of amenity and highway safety. 5 Disabled Access - Buildings 6 Noise and Odour/Fume from Plant and Machinery 7 PD Restriction - Classes A to E 8 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for:- (a) The storage and disposal of refuse/waste (b) and vehicular access thereto has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied or used until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To ensure adequate standards of hygiene and refuse/waste collection without prejudice to the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties.

continued/

1 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/01 – P/327/04/COU continued.....

9 The access points from Stanley Road and Roxeth Green Avenue shall be closed upon the availability of access through the Brember Road Industrial Estate. REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway. 10 Upon the availability of the access through the Brember Road Industrial Estate provision shall be made for access through the application site to the area identified on plan no. 1337/8A as site E '24 Seven' to enable the full closure of vehicular access from Roxeth Green Avenue. REASON: To confine access to the site from Brember Road in order to assist the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway. 11 Development shall not commence until details of on site drainage works have been submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No works which result in the discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be commenced until the on site drainage works referred to above have been completed. REASON: To ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided. 12 Before the development is commenced a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of the contamination present, and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this site investigation shall be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provisions for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved. REASON: To prevent pollution of the water environment. 13 No soakaways shall be constructed in contaminated ground. REASON: To prevent pollution of groundwater. 14 Surface water source control measures shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to improve water quality. INFORMATIVES: 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 27 – Access for All 3 Standard Informative 35 – CDM Regulations 1994 4 Standard Informative 36 – Measurements from Submitted Plans

continued/

2 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/01 – P/327/04/COU continued.....

6 Standard Informative 43 - Building Adjacent to Public Sewer 7 Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters (e.g. watercourses and underground waters), and may be required for any discharge of surface water to such controlled waters or for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or into waters which are not controlled waters. Such consent may be withheld. Contact Consents Department on 01707 632300 for further details Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the 8 Environment Agency is required for dewatering from any excavation or development to a surface watercourse. Contact Consents Department on 01707 632300 for further details. 9 Culverted watercourses shall not be built over, but should ideally be opened up and a feature made of the site. The Environment Agency should be consulted to discuss any such proposals. The applicant should note that under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act (1991) the prior written consent of the Agency is required for certain works which may affect the flow of an ordinary watercourse. Contact Development Control Officer, Lydia Bruce-Burgess on 01707 632402 for further details. 10 The proposals include development in close proximity to a tributary of The Roxbourne Brook. This may prejudice flood defence interests and possibly restrict necessary access to the watercourse for maintenance.

Land Drainage 1991 Byelaw 10

No Obstructions within 5 Metres of the Edge of the Watercourse

No person shall, without the previous consent of the Council shall erect any building or structure whether temporary or permanent or plant any tree, tree shrub, willow or other similar growth within 5 metres of the landward toe of the bank where there is an embankment or wall within 5 metres of the top of the batter where there is no embankment or wall or where the watercourse is enclosed within 5 metres of the enclosing structure. 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development E46 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Non-Residential Development E51 Noise Nuisance T13 Car Parking Standards H1 Housing Provision - Safeguarding of Amenity H8 Residential Density H9 Provision of Affordable Housing EM1 Loss of Employment continued/….. 3 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/01 – P/327/04/COU continued.....

EM4 Business, Industrial and Warehousing Development - Retention of Uses EM7 (Revised) Business, Industrial and Warehousing Development - Criteria for Development A4 People with Disabilities - Parking and External Access Needs A5 People with Disabilities - Housing to Mobility Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: S1 Form of Development and Pattern of Land Use SD1 Quality of Design SD3 Mixed-Use Development SH1 Housing Provision and Housing Need SEM3 Proposals for New Employment-Generating Development EP25 Noise D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy D6 Design in Employment Areas T13 Parking Standards H5 Residential Density H6 Affordable Housing H19 Mobility and Lifetime Homes EM11 Regeneration Areas EM12 Small Industrial Units and Workshops EM15 Business, Industrial and Warehousing Use - Designated Areas EM23 Environmental Impact of New Business Development

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1) Employment Policy (EM1, EM4, EM7 (Revised), (SD3, SEM3, D6, EM11, EM12, EM15, EM23) 2) Housing Policy (H1, H8, H9), (SH1, H5, H6) 3) Neighbouring Amenity (E6, E45, E46, E51), (SD1, EP25, D4, D5) 4) Accessibility (A4, A5), (H19) 5) Parking and Highways Issues (T13), (S1, T13) 6) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary Employment Area UDP Proposal Site: 12 Replacement UDP Proposal Site: PS24 Car Parking Standard: ) Justified: ) See Report Provided: ) Site Area: 0.75 ha Floorspace: 10,880m2 Council Interest: None but see report regarding access

continued/

4 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/01 – P/327/04/COU continued..... b) Site Description • the TXU site (formerly Eastern Electricity) is an unused parcel of land which has only limited access to Roxeth Green Avenue • Biro House adjoining, lies due south and has access from Stanley Road, it is a large vacant office/industrial building • to the west of the site lies Brember Road Industrial Estate and the Council’s Brember Road Day Centre • to the south lies Stanley Road and the rear gardens of residential properties • to the west lies a builders yard and works, with the railway arches beyond • to the north lies a further office/industrial site, ’24 Seven’ and an electricity sub-station c) Proposal Details • outline application with only access to be determined • proposal is for principle of redevelopment of site to provide units for Class B1 (business use) and live/work units Class C3/B1 (residential units with business use) • proposal incorporates 2,808m2 of B1 floorspace and 8,072m2 of C3/B1 floorspace and is an amendment to a previously approved scheme, the amendment comprising an additional 2,000m2 of C3/B1 floorspace enabling up to 100 live/work units in place of the previously proposed 55. • initial access would be via existing Stanley Road and Roxeth Green Avenue access points, these to be closed off when access becomes available through the Brember Road Industrial Estate. The latter relies upon the closure of the Council’s Brember Road Day Centre. d) Relevant History Biro House WEST/557/99/FUL Two detached 3 storey blocks to provide 24 x NOT 2 bed flats with access and parking DETERMINED Dismissed on Appeal 10-JAN-2000

WEST/743/99/FUL Two detached 3 storey blocks to provide 24 x REFUSED 2 bed flats with access and parking 17-DEC-99

Reasons for refusal: “1. The proposal would result in the loss of land for employment use contrary to the provisions of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan. 2. The development, by reason of size, siting and bulk of buildings, and siting of the car park represents overdevelopment of the site which would have a prejudicial effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents. 3. The proposal fails to make provision for affordable housing, contrary to the Council’s revised policy in this regard. 4. The proposals would be premature in advance of the findings of the South Harrow Study 5. The proposals would result in an unsatisfactory relationship to the adjoining commercial development which would be detrimental to the amenities of the future residents.

continued/

5 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/01 – P/327/04/COU continued.....

6. The proposals would represent overdevelopment of the site by reason of inadequate rear garden depth and amenity space, contrary to the provisions of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan and detrimental to the character of the locality.”

TXU & Biro House

P/978/03/COU Outline: redevelopment to provide units for B1 GRANTED (business) use and live/work units with 11-JUL-03 parking P/2111/03/DAD Two externally illuminated hoardings and GRANTED hanging banner with wind turbine 04-NOV-03 P/2112/03/CFU Use of part of industrial building (Class B1) GRANTED for exhibition purposes (Class D1) in relation 06-NOV-03 to redevelopment proposals P/2519/03/COU Outline: 216 residential units in 4/16 storey CURRENT blocks with wind turbines, commercial units APPLICATION and community facilities (Harrow ZED) e) Applicant’s Statement • following previous permission, applicant is seeking to increase the number of live/work units by making them smaller and increasing the overall floorspace • B1 floorspace remains at 2,808m2 and would be 4 storey • live/work units would alter from 55 to 100 and individual size fall from 110m2 to 80m2, thus increasing the overall floorspace to 8,072m2 with units being 3 storey on average • site coverage by buildings less than 50% • TXU site is an unused parcel of land which has only limited access to Roxeth Green Avenue, Biro House lies due south and has access from Stanley Road and is a large vacant office/industrial building • to the east lies Brember Road Industrial Estate and the Council’s Brember Road Day Centre, to the south lies Stanley Road and the rear gardens of residential properties, to the west lies a builders yard and works with railway arches beyond, to the north lies a further office/industrial site 24 Seven and an electricity sub-station • outline approval, with only access to be determined at this stage, for principle of redevelopment of site • initial access via existing Stanley Road and Roxeth Green Avenue access points, with these closed off when access becomes available through Brember Road as indicated in the Revised Deposit Draft UDP • site identified as part of Proposal Site 24 for industrial development and proposal seeks ratification of this in the amount, form and proportions of B1 business and live/work units • Policy EM15 identifies proposal site as B1 business and EM12 encourages the development of individual industrial units of up to 1,000m2 floorspace including live/work units

continued/

6 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/01 – P/327/04/COU continued.....

• area also identified as a Regeneration Area (Policy EM11) and proposals fall in line with policies to encourage creation of new jobs and training • live/work units will act as natural buffer between residential areas of Stanley Road and Roxeth Green Avenue, and this use, together with B1 office use, will not overload the already busy and congested industrial estate layout with additional heavy goods vehicular movements • style of development will also fit well with Policy EM23 because of its subdued impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and the character of the area • Chestertons report commissioned by Council has highlighted a frustrated demand for small, low cost accommodation for business start-ups. Both the proposed B1 and live/work units will help to meet this demand. f) Consultations TWU: No objections subject to condition EA: No objections subject to conditions and informatives L.B. Hillingdon Comments Awaited L.B. Ealing Comments Awaited CEHO Units will need to be suitably protected from noise/vibration

Advertisement Major Development Expiry 25-MAR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 1255 7 12-MAR-04

Summary of Responses: Object to more traffic on Roxeth Green Avenue; Council should improve pavements and grass verges; concern at height of development and loss of privacy; plans too vague - question what is proposed; how long will temporary access be for?; concern at wider issue of concentration of building in South Harrow; loss of light/overlooking; no objection in principle but would object if inadequate parking and buildings too high.

APPRAISAL

1) Employment Policy Whilst the UDP review has progressed since the previous proposal for business and live/work use of the site was approved, there have been no material changes with regard to employment policy that would affect how the application is considered.

As noted in the previous report (9th July 2003), in strict terms, the revised UDP Policy EM15 designation for the site is for Class B1, B2 or B8 uses only. However the introduction of live/work units (B1/C3) onto the site would be appropriate in the light of Policy EM12 and in view of the recent Chesterton report prepared for the Council which highlighted a frustrated demand for small, low cost accommodation for business start- ups. Both the proposed B1 and live/work units could potentially help to meet this demand.

continued/ 7 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/01 – P/327/04/COU continued.....

At the full application stage conditions would need to be considered to prevent the live/work units becoming residential only.

Overall, the opportunity of a comprehensive redevelopment of the sites should be welcomed and would accord with the Council’s employment policies.

2) Housing Policy Given that the site is a previously developed one it is considered that there would not be any conflict with the Council’s housing policies. Clearly much would depend upon the detail of any subsequent application. A planning condition relating to affordable housing would be appropriate at this stage to safeguard the Council’s position with regard to any future detailed application, shared ownership of some of the live/work units being an option. Dependent upon the details submitted, the condition could be applied or waived accordingly.

3) Neighbouring Amenity As with the previously approved scheme, the application merely seeks to establish the principle of the B1 and B1/C3 uses on the site (albeit at a higher density) and does not include details of siting. Consequently, again the subsequent detailed application would need to be fully assessed with regard to neighbours amenity. Nevertheless the location of the site lends itself to the uses proposed. As noted in the applicants statement, the live/work units could act as a buffer between the existing traditional residential properties and the full B1 usage.

4) Accessibility A planning condition and informative are proposed to ensure accessibility is fully considered at the detailed application stage.

5) Parking and Highways Issues These have not changed since the previous scheme was granted. The access arrangements proposed would appear satisfactory and are intended to remove heavy goods traffic from Stanley Road and Roxeth Green Avenue. Much depends upon the Council’s closure and disposal of the Brember Road Day Centre. Planning conditions to ensure the closure of the Stanley Road and Roxeth Green Avenue access points are recommended as well to allow for access through the site to the adjacent ’24 Seven’ site. Full details of the road layout and parking would again be part of any subsequent detailed application.

continued/

8 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/01 – P/327/04/COU continued.....

6) Consultation Responses The proposal, if ultimately implemented would improve traffic conditions on Stanley Road and Roxeth Green Avenue. At present the usage of the site is low, Biro House having been vacant for some time, however this could change without the need for planning permission. Thus whilst residents have become accustomed to low levels of vehicular traffic for the site, this is not a guaranteed situation. The issue of works to pavements and grass verges does not fall within the remit of this application but is a wider issue which the Council is addressing including through the New Harrow Project. The height of any buildings and the possibility of loss of light and overlooking would be addressed in any details pursuant application submitted if the outline scheme is granted. Understandably there appears to be some confusion amongst the general public over the differences between this application and the Harrow ZED scheme which covers largely the same site but which is a separate proposal. How long the temporary access points would need to be open is not known but is within the control of the Council as the alternative route is through Council owned land, namely the Brember Day Centre. With regard to the concentration of building works in South Harrow, it is true that a number of redevelopment schemes are either in the process of implementation or are proposed however this is reflected throughout the Borough and is indicative of the general pressures for additional housing in London.

CONCLUSION For all the reasons considered above, and weighing up the development plan policies and proposals, and other material considerations, including any comments received in response to publicity and consultation, as set out above, this application is recommended for grant.

9 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

1/02 87/89 WHITCHURCH LANE, EDGWARE P/2760/03/CFU/TW Ward: CANONS DETACHED THREE STOREY BUILDING WITH BASEMENT PARKING TO PROVIDE 12 FLATS

S K WENNINGTON for TRI COUNTY DEVELOPERS LTD

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 03001/PO1, PO2, PO3, PO4, PO5, PO6, PO7 : 03001/EO1, EO2, EO3

REFUSE permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans for the following reason(s):

1 The proposed development, by reason of excessive size and bulk, would be visually obtrusive, would be out of character with neighbouring properties, to the detriment of the character of the area. 2 The proposed vehicle access way by reason of unsatisfactory siting in relation to neighbouring residential properties and associated noise and disturbance would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbours. INFORMATIVE: 1 Standard Informative 41 – UDP & Deposit Draft UDP Policies & Proposals (E6, E45, T13), (SD1, D4, D5, T13)

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1) Character of the Area (E6, E45) (SD1, D4, D5) 2) Amenity of Neighbours (E45) (D4, D5) 3) Car Parking/Highway Safety (T13) (T13) 4) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary Car Parking Standard: 16 (max 16) Justified: 15 ( 15) Provided: 15 Site Area: 0.068 ha. Habitable Rooms: 30 Floorspace: 1024sq.m. No. of Residential Units: 12 Density: 176 dph 440 hrph b) Site Description • site is located at the junction of Whitchurch Lane with Montgomery Road • the site is occupied by a pair of semi-detached two storey houses and their garden areas • the site measures 22.5m in width and 32m in depth continued/

10 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/02 - P/2760/03/CFU continued..... c) Proposal Details • redevelopment to construct a three storey block of twelve flats • proposed block would measure 22m in width and 25m in depth • the proposed underground car park of 15 spaces would be reached by a ramped access from the Montgomery Road frontage • the top floor accommodation of the proposed building would be contained within a mansard roof d) Relevant History None e) Consultations TWU: No objection

Advertisement Major Development Expiry 25-FEB-2004

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 37 5 + petition of 12-FEB-2004 8 signatures Summary of Response: Too close to neighbouring property; overlooking; noise from cars, subsidence, no landscaping, overdevelopment.

APPRAISAL

1) Character of the Area The surrounding area contains a variety of buildings and uses. The predominating uses are residential, but commercial premises are present in Whitchurch Parade and the adjacent hotel use.

The residential buildings in the area display a variety of forms; terraced houses, detached houses and some developments of flats. However all the properties in the area display some setting in the form of garden areas. The proposed building would effectively fill the whole plot and would provide no space around the building, apart from a narrow frontage strip and a small area adjacent to the vehicle access ramp within the rear of the site.

It is considered that the size of the building combined with the lack of space around it would be at odds with the prevailing character of the area.

2) Amenity of Neighbours The proposal would introduce main roof windows within the rear of the site which would be sited at a distance of 7.5m to 9m from the rear gardens of 1 and 3 Graham Lodge and 10m from No. 91 Whitchurch Lane. It is considered that the proposed relationship is unacceptable and would give rise to overlooking of the gardens of those adjacent premises. continued/

11 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/02 - P/2760/03/CFU continued.....

The proposed vehicle ramp would be sited close to the neighbouring garden boundaries within the proposed open area of the site. It is considered that the particular configuration of the site would give rise to noise which would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of those neighbouring residents.

3) Car Parking/Highway Safety It is considered that the proposed 15 spaces for the 12 flats would be acceptable in this location. The site is relatively close to shops and services within Edgware and has reasonably good transport links.

4) Consultation Responses Addressed above. Subsidence not material to planning.

12 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

1/03 60 - 64 LOWER ROAD, HARROW P/563/04/CFU/GM Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

REDEVELOPMENT: 10 TWO STOREY HOUSES AND BLOCK OF 4 FLATS, GATES AND PARKING

ERIC COLE & PARTNERS for PERSIMMON HOMES-THAMES vALLEY

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 04.001.100C; FLATS 1-3; FLATS 2-3;FLATS 3-3;GATES; 3BED-1-2; 3BED-2-2; 99-1-2; 99-2-2; JBA 03/223-01; Site Plan

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s):

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted below have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority: (a) the extension/building(s) The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the locality. 3 No demolition or site works in connection with the development hereby permitted shall commence before:- (a) the frontage. (b) the boundary. of the site is enclosed by a close boarded fence to a minimum height of 2 metres. Such fencing shall remain until works and clearance have been completed, and the development is ready for occupation. REASON: In the interests of amenity and highway safety. 4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no window(s)/door(s), other than those shown on the approved plans shall be installed in the flank wall(s) of the development hereby permitted without the prior permission in writing of the local planning authority. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. 5 The window(s) in the northern flank wall(s) of the flats shall: (a) be of purpose-made obscure glass, (b) be permanently fixed closed below a height of 1.8m above finished floor level, and shall thereafter be retained in that form. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.

continued/

13 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/03 – P/563/04/CFU continued.....

6 Highway - Visibility - 3 7 Landscaping to be Implemented 8 Levels to be Approved 9 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the car parking, turning and loading area(s) shown on the approved plan number(s) 04.001.100C have been constructed and surfaced with impervious materials, and drained in accordance with details submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The car parking spaces shall be permanently marked out and used for no other purpose, at any time, without the written permission of the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory provision of parking areas, to safeguard the appearance of the locality and in the interests of highway safety. 10 Parking for Occupants - Garages/Parking Spaces 11 PD Restriction - Classes A to E 12 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for:- (a) The storage and disposal of refuse/waste (b) and vehicular access thereto has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied or used until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To ensure adequate standards of hygiene and refuse/waste collection without prejudice to the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties. 13 Disabled Access - Buildings 14 Water Storage Works INFORMATIVES: 1 Standard Informative 19 – Flank Windows 2 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 3 Standard Informative 27 – Access for All 4 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 5 Standard Informative 35 – CDM Regulations 1994 6 Standard Informative 36 – Measurements from Submitted Plans 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E29 Trees - New Development E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development E51 Noise Nuisance H1 Housing Provision - Safety of Amenity

continued/

14 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/03 – P/563/04/CFU continued.....

H8 Residential Density EM1 Loss of Employment New Employment Policy T13 Car Parking Standards A5 People with Disabilities - Housing to Mobility Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design SH1 Housing Provision EP21 Use of Previously-Developed Land EP25 Noise D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy D11 Trees and New Development T13 Parking Standards H5 Residential Density EM16 Business, Industrial and Warehousing Use H19 Mobility and Lifetime Homes

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1) Employment Policy (EM1, EM) (EM16) 2) Housing Policy (H1, H8) (SH1, H5) 3) Visual and Residential Amenity (E6, E45, E51) (SD1, EP21, EP25, D4, D5) 4) Parking and Highway Issues (T13) (T13) 5) Trees (E29) (D11) 6) Accessibility (A5) (H19) 7) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary Car Parking Standard: 23 (22) Justified: 23 (22) Provided: 22 Habitable Rooms: 54 No. of Residential Units: 14 Site Area: 0.28ha Density: 50dph 193hrph Council Interest: None b) Site Description • long rectangular site on western side of Lower Road previously in use for car repairs (Class B2) now vacant • site presently occupied by 2 storey building on frontage with various single storey sheds, workshops and garages behind

continued/

15 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/03 – P/563/04/CFU continued.....

• largely hardsurfaced with areas previously used for open parking • northern boundary abuts access path at rear of gardens or properties on Lower Road and Dudley Gardens; western boundary abuts service road at rear of properties on The Crescent; southern boundary abuts office building at front, residential flats on Lower Road and allotment gardens (partly disused) c) Proposal Details • demolition of all buildings on site • removal of 13 trees within site but replacement planting of 13 trees included in landscape details • redevelopment to provide 2 storey block of 4 flats at front of site with 2 storey terraces of 3, 3 and 4 houses respectively to the rear • all units to include accommodation in the roof • communal parking in 3 areas providing a total of 18 spaces with 2 private garages with 2 private parking spaces in front (giving a total of 22 spaces) • electronic access gates set back some 13m from site frontage with new boundary fencing • principal changes to approved scheme comprise: revised layout at rear with terraces of 3 and 4 units transposed, insertion of pair of garages between 2 terraces within centre of site, loss of ash tree to rear of site to accommodate improved sightlines for access road, insertion of access gates set back from site frontage. d) Relevant History The site has a long planning history with various car repair and storage uses being granted. The most recent applications are as follows:

LBH/38990 Outline: Erection of 4 three storey REFUSED buildings to provide 36 three bedroomed 07-NOV-89 flats, with access and parking Reasons for Refusal: “1. The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of statutory allotment land for which there is known demand, contrary to the provision of Policy 146 of the Harrow Borough Local Plan. 2. The proposed development, would constitute an undesirable back land development and by reason of excessive size and bulk and unsatisfactory siting, would be unduly obtrusive, overbearing in relation to neighbouring properties, which comprise mainly 2 storey semi-detached and terraced houses, and would not respect the scale and massing of these properties, to the detriment of the visual amenities of neighbouring residents and the character of the area. 3. The proposal would destroy the open character of the soft garden interface between Shaftesbury Avenue, The Crescent and Dudley Gardens to the detriment of the visual amenities of neighbouring residents and the character of the area.

continued/

16 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/03 – P/563/04/CFU continued.....

4. The proposals, by reason of excessive site coverage by buildings and hardsurface access and parking areas, and associated increased disturbance and general activity, would be an over intensive use and amount to over-development of the site to the detriment of neighbouring residents and the character of the area. 5. The proposals would allow overlooking of the rear gardens of adjoining properties and result in an unreasonable loss of privacy to the occupiers. 6. The proposed block in the north east corner of the site, by reason of unsatisfactory siting, would result in overshadowing and loss of daylight to the rear of adjoining properties in The Crescent, to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of those properties. 7. Insufficient on-site parking is proposed and the resultant kerb-side parking on neighbouring highways would be detrimental to the free flow of traffic and public safety.” This application included the adjacent allotments.

WEST/1273/02/FUL Redevelopment: 10 2-storey houses and GRANTED 2-storey block of 4 flats with parking 30-APR-03 P/1599/03/CFU Redevelopment: 13 3-storey and 1 2- NOT storey house with access and parking DETERMINED CURRENT APPEAL Committee resolved that had the applicant not appealed, the application would have been refused for the following reasons: “1. The proposal would represent overdevelopment of the site, by reason of inadequate rear garden depth and amenity space and excessive density, contrary to the provisions of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan and detrimental to the character of the locality. 2. The proposed detached house would appear incongruous and out of character with the remainder of the development, would give rise to overlooking and a loss of privacy to the occupiers of properties on Dudley Gardens to the rear, and would itself be overlooked, with a resultant lack of privacy, from the proposed 2 houses on plots 5 and 10. 3. The proposed pair of houses at the site frontage would have an unacceptable level of privacy and amenity due to their siting relative to an existing adjoining office block on Lower Road which has large windows which face across the site. 4. The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of trees of significant amenity value which, in the opinion of the local planning authority, would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality. 5. Car parking cannot be satisfactorily provided within the curtilage of the site to meet the Council’s requirements in respect of the development, and the likely increase in parking on the neighbouring highway(s) would be detrimental to the free flow and safety of traffic on the neighbouring highway(s).

continued/

17 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/03 – P/563/04/CFU continued..... e) Applicant’s Statement • proposal involves changes only to the design and layout of the dwellings previously approved, not the number, following purchase of site by new owner f) Consultations TWU: No objections EA: No comments to make

Advertisement Major Development Expiry 08-APR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 45 0 29-MAR-04 APPRAISAL

1) Employment Policy In granting permission for the previous redevelopment proposals for the site, the Committee accepted that there were no overriding employment policy objections.

The site had fallen into a low level of usage and general disrepair over a considerable length of time prior to being vacated. Whilst it would not appear to have been actively marketed for Class B2 use, its difficult access and proximity to residential properties would not encourage a refurbishment or rebuilding for such use.

Thus whilst the proposal would be in some conflict with aspects of the Council’s employment policies, there are wider concerns. The restitution of an active B2 use would give rise to highway concerns due to the proximity of the site access to the roundabouts and traffic light junction at the bottom of Lower Road. There would also be likely to be amenity issues with regard to the residential properties on Lower Road and Dudley Gardens which abut the site, should a B2 use be pursued.

2) Housing Policy The number of units remains as previously approved, comprising two storey units with accommodation in the roof. There have been no relevant material changes to policy relating to housing since the previous scheme was approved other than a removal of the upper limit on the density range. Accordingly it is considered that there are no conflicts with the Council’s housing policies.

3) Visual and Residential Amenity The existing state of the site is something of an eyesore though it is screened from public view to a large extent by trees and shrubs on the boundaries.

The proposed development would enhance the appearance of the Lower Road frontage with the redevelopment of the existing two storey building. The site frontage is unusual, with a two storey office building lying immediately adjacent at no. 66 and having windows facing across the site. As a consequence, the proposal involves a block of 4 flats at the front with limited amenity space. This aspect remains as per the approved scheme. continued/ 18 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/03 – P/563/04/CFU continued.....

Within the site the development would be largely two storey with accommodation in the roof served by front and rear dormers and rooflights. This would provide a coherent form to the development as a whole and would not be out of character with surrounding housing. The changes to the approved layout at the rear of the site would not give rise to direct overlooking or loss of privacy for adjoining occupiers. Existing tree planting would be largely retained on the critical boundaries and enhanced with new planting.

The removal of the authorised B2 use and its replacement with a residential development would represent a substantial improvement in amenity terms for adjoining occupiers.

With regard to the amenities of future occupiers of the units proposed, it is considered that these would be satisfactory. The rear garden areas and distances would be below the Council’s SPG standards, however the revised draft deposit UDP does not set such rigid standards. The garden sizes and relationship between properties would not be dissimilar to those on Middle and Lower Roads nearby.

4) Parking and Highway Issues The proposal would meet the Council’s replacement UDP parking standards through the use of communal parking bays and 2 private garages with parking spaces in front.

The new building proposed for the front of the site would be set back from the frontage and allow for improved visibility compared to the existing situation. Whilst the current level of usage is low it should be remembered that this could be intensified without the need for planning permission. The replacement of traffic for a commercial use with that for a purely residential development would be of benefit for general highway safety and traffic flow.

The introduction of access gates would be acceptable, being set back from the site frontage.

5) Trees The level of tree loss is largely the same as for the approved scheme. The additional removal of the ash tree at the rear of the site is not considered to be of overriding concern. It is a multi-stem tree that has ivy infestation and has suffered in the past from fire damage. The replacement planting proposed would enhance the site’s appearance and be appropriate to the location.

6) Accessibility A planning condition and informative are proposed to ensure satisfactory levels of accessibility.

7) Consultation Responses None continued/

19 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/03 – P/563/04/CFU continued.....

20 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

1/04 1-9 PETERBOROUGH RD, HARROW P/245/04/CFU/TEM Ward: GREENHILL

REDEVELOPMENT:DETACHED PART 5,PART 6,PART 7 STOREY BLDG TO PROVIDE 18 FLATS WITH EXISTING PARKING (RESIDENT PERMIT RESTRICTED)

PCKO LTD for ZAAMIN INVESTMENTS LTD

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 9744/P100, P310 Rev A, P311, P312, P313, P314, P315, P316, P317, P318 Rev A, P320

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted below have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority: (a) the extension/building(s) (b) the ground surfacing The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the locality. 3 No demolition or site works in connection with the development hereby permitted shall commence before:- (a) the boundary. of the site is enclosed by a close boarded fence to a minimum height of 2 metres. Such fencing shall remain until works and clearance have been completed, and the development is ready for occupation. REASON: In the interests of amenity and highway safety. 4 No development shall take place until a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed: a: before the building(s) is/are occupied The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and the character of the locality.

Continued/….

21 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/04 - P245/04/CFU – continued/…

5 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the car parking, turning and loading area(s) shown on the approved plan number(s) 9744/P310 Rev A have been constructed and surfaced with impervious materials, and drained in accordance with details submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The car parking spaces shall be permanently marked out and used for no other purpose, at any time, without the written permission of the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory provision of parking areas, to safeguard the appearance of the locality and in the interests of highway safety. 6 Water Storage Works

INFORMATIVES 1 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. 2 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. A copy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister booklet "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: explanatory booklet" is available free of charge from: ODPM Free Literature, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237 Textphone: 0870 1207 405 E-mail:[email protected] Website: http://www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/bregs/walls.htm 3 INFORMATIVE: The relevant traffic order will impose a restriction making residential occupiers of this building ineligible for residents parking permits in the surrounding controlled parking zone.

Continued/….

22 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/04 - P245/04/CFU – continued/…

4 INFORMATIVE: The development hereby approved may be subject to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 which govern health and safety through all stages of a construction project. The Regulations require clients (ie those, including developers, who commission projects) to appoint a planning supervisor and principal contractor who are competent and adequately resourced to carry out their health and safety responsibilities. Clients have further obligations. Your designer will tell you about these and your planning supervisor can assist you in fulfilling them. Further information is available from the Health and Safety Executive Infoline on 0541 545500.

(Please note that any reference in this informative to "planning supervisor" has no connection with any Planning Officers within Harrow's Planning Services or with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.)

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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development E47 Height of Buildings T13 Car Parking Standards EM New Employment Policy Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development – Amenity Space and Privacy H5 Site Specific Proposals H10 Conversions EM16 Business, Industrial and Warehousing Use – Outside Designated Areas T13 Car Parking Standards

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1. Employment Policy (New Employment Policy) (EM16) 2. Appearance of Area (E6, E45, E47) (SD1, D4, D5, H5, H10) 3. Neighbouring Amenity (E45) (D4) 4. Parking (T13) (T13) 5. Consultation Responses Continued/….

23 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/04 - P245/04/CFU – continued/…

INFORMATION a) Summary

Town Centre Harrow Car Parking Standard: 25 (24) Justified: 12 See report Provided: 5 Site Area: 490m2 Habitable Rooms: 46 No of Residential Units: 18 Density : 367dph 939 hrph Council Interest: None b) Site Description • triangular shaped site, located on east side of Peterborough Road within Harrow Strategic Centre • occupied by 4 storey building, with basement, providing some 700m2 of B1 office floorspace • 5 parking spaces behind the building, accessed behind Nos.17-19 and 11-15 Peterborough Road • building has attractive front façade with ornamental tower feature at north-west corner • metropolitan railway line abuts northern boundary, set down in a cutting, existing building 1m from railway boundary • pedestrian access to building between northern elevation and railway boundary • site tapers down at rear adjacent to vehicular access serving houses in Kenton Avenue • more recent office developments to south, and opposite the site, up to 4 storeys high • site within Controlled Parking Zone c) Proposal Details • demolition of existing building • development of 7-storey building to provide 18 flats • 8 x 1 bed x 2 habitable room units, 10 x 2 bed x 3 habitable room units • fifth and sixth floors set back from main front and rear walls, circular tower above sixth floor at front of proposed building • brick and rendered elevations up to fifth floor level with extensive glazing, metal and glazed elevations for top 2-storeys • 5 parking spaces at rear of site, 2 of which would be beneath building

Continued/….

24 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/04 - P245/04/CFU – continued/… d) Relevant History

EAST/16/99/FUL Part demolition and 5/6 storey extension at rear GRANTED with conversion to provide offices (class B1) and 13-MAR-00 six flats: Resident Permit Restricted

EAST/990/00/FUL Part demolition, 5/6 storey rear extension for GRANTED offices at ground floor level and 14 flats on upper 06-APR-2001 floors, parking (Resident Permit Restricted) e) Applicant’s Statement • not possible to retain existing corner turret due to floor build quality, condition and nature of its fabric, in addition to requiring difficult, complex and uneconomic repair and building operations • building subject to extensive subsidence • integrating fragments of existing façade into new building would produce awkward and muddled appearance • junctions between existing and new fabric would result in unsatisfactory building and confused architecture • design statement accompanies application:- - site provides opportunity for important focal point - existing building does not do this as dwarfed by adjacent building and lift shaft - first 5-storeys of proposed building continue adjacent frontages as solid wall wrapping round the corner - above this level much lighter crown steps up from both elevations to culminate at top floor in decorative corner drum feature, providing corner focal point and partially screening adjacent ugly lift shaft. - this part of building expressed as light metallic screen using glass/solid panel cladding system, with handrails, grills, railings, balustrades and bris-soleils - arcade formed at rear of building to reflect configuration of existing building to retain 5 parking spaces f) Consultations Environment Agency: No comments received London Transport: Comments received Thames Water Utilities Ltd: Informatives suggested English Heritage (Archaeology) No condition required Advertisement : Major Development Expiry: 18-MAR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 6 4 8-MAR-2004

Summary of Responses: On-street parking, overlooking, out of character, loss of Edwardian building, excessive height, lack of screening, loss of privacy and light. Continued/….

25 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/04 - P245/04/CFU – continued/…

APPRAISAL

1. Employment Policy The applicant demonstrated, in connection with the two previous applications for this site, that offices above ground-floor level in this location were not viable due to a lack of demand and the high cost of refurbishing the existing building.

Since the most recent permission was granted in 2001 the site has been marketed with the benefit of planning permission but a viable offer has not been made.

In addition the building has been largely vacant in recent years.

Given these considerations, and that a B1 floorspace of 182m2 only is retained in the 2001 permission, it is suggested that the loss of employment floorspace in this proposal can be accepted.

2. Appearance of Area This site is suitable for higher buildings in terms of adopted Policy E47 by virtue of its location within Harrow Strategic Centre. Adjacent buildings to the south rise up to 4 storeys and a lift tower immediately next to the site provides a fifth floor in terms of appearance and the streetscene in Peterborough Road. The proposed building up to fifth storey level would roughly line up with the main roof level of the adjacent building. The two top floors plus the tower feature would be set back from the main front and side walls, and be of more lightweight construction.

The roof of the seventh storey would be just over a metre higher than the neighbouring lift tower, which is an unattractive and bulky feature in the streetscene.

The proposed building would therefore partially screen the lift tower from northern views, to the benefit of the appearance of the area.

Overall it is considered that an acceptable style of architecture is proposed which would provide interest and a focal point in this part of the centre. While previous permissions retained the existing Edwardian frontage, it is now considered that this would not be appropriate given the scale of the new building and the apparent structural problems inherent in retaining and building onto the frontage.

In this context, it is suggested that the proposed building, which would mostly be 1- storey higher than previously approved, would make a positive contribution to the character of the area.

Continued/….

26 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/04 - P245/04/CFU – continued/…

3. Neighbouring Amenity The footprint of the proposed building up to fifth-floor level is identical to the scheme granted in 2001, with the fifth-floor set back by 6m from the main rear wall of the building.

The new sixth-floor shown in this application would be sited a further 6.5m back from the rear wall of the fifth floor, a separation distance of some 60m at an oblique angle from the nearest rear boundary of residential premises in Kenton Avenue.

Given this, and the presence of trees behind 11-15 Peterborough Road, it is considered that neighbouring residential amenity would not be adversely affected by the proposals.

4. Parking Since the last scheme was granted in 2001 the residential area in Kenton Avenue to the rear of the site has been designated a Residents Parking Zone. In the light of this, the location of the site within a Controlled Parking Zone, the high accessibility to public transport and the Resident Permit Restricted status of the scheme, the proposed level of parking can be accepted.

5. Consultation Responses Discussed in report.

27 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

1/05 143 IMPERIAL DRIVE, NORTH HARROW P/562/04/CFU/GM Ward: WEST HARROW REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE 16 FLATS IN PART 3, PART 4 STOREY BUILDING WITH PARKING (RESIDENT PERMIT RESTRICTED)

GILLETT MACLEOD PARTNERSHIP for W E BLACK LTD

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 04/2274/1A; 2; 3; 4 and Site Plan

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s):

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted below have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority: (a) the extension/building(s) (c) the boundary treatment The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the locality. 3 Landscaping to be Approved 4 Landscaping to be Implemented 5 Disabled Access - Buildings 6 No development shall take place until a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed: b: before the building(s) is/are occupied REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and the character of the locality. 7 Highway - Closing of Access(es) 8 Highway - Approval of Access(es) 9 Highway - Approval of Construction 10 Highway - Visibility - 3 11 Levels to be Approved 12 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the car parking, turning and loading area(s) shown on the approved plan number(s) 04/2274/1A have been constructed and surfaced with impervious materials, and drained in accordance with details submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The car parking spaces shall be permanently marked out and used for no other purpose, at any time, without the written permission of the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory provision of parking areas, to safeguard the appearance of the locality and in the interests of highway safety. continued/

28 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/05 - P/562/04/CFU continued.....

13 Parking for Occupants - Parking Spaces 14 Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted a scheme identifying a minimum of 4 of the units as lifetime homes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The units shall be built in accordance with the scheme. REASON: To ensure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with the Council's access policies. 15 No soakaways shall be constructed in contaminated ground. REASON: To prevent pollution of groundwater. 16 The construction of the surface water drainage system shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. REASON: To prevent pollution of the water environment. 17 The construction of the site foundations shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. REASON: To prevent pollution of groundwater. 18 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for:- (a) The storage and disposal of refuse/waste (b) and vehicular access thereto has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied or used until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To ensure adequate standards of hygiene and refuse/waste collection without prejudice to the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties. 19 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for secure cycle storage has been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details and these shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To ensure adequate secure storage of bicycles in accordance with the Council's UDP Policies. INFORMATIVES: 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 27 – Access for All 3 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 4 Standard Informative 35 – CDM Regulations 1994 5 Standard Informative 36 – Measurements from Submitted Plans

continued/

29 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/05 - P/562/04/CFU continued.....

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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development E47 Height of Buildings E51 Noise Nuisance H1 Housing Provision - Safeguard of Amenity H3 Housing Provision - Special Needs and Small Units H8 Residential Density H9 Provision of Affordable Housing T13 Car Parking Standards A4 People with Disabilities - Parking and External Access Needs A5 People with Disabilities - Housing to Mobility Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design SH1 Housing Provision and Housing Need EP21 Use of Previously-Developed Land EP25 Noise D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy T13 Parking Standards H4 Housing Provision on Previously-Developed Land H5 Residential Density H6 Affordable Housing H19 Mobility and Lifetime Homes

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1) Housing Policy (H1, H3, H8, H9) (SH1, H5, H6) 2) Accessibility (A4, A5) (H19) 3) Visual and Residential Amenity (E6, E45, E47, E51) (SD1, EP21, EP25, D4, D5) 4) Parking and Highways Issues (T13) (T13) 5) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary Town Centre Rayners Lane Car Parking Standard: 24 (23) Justified: 24 (23) Provided: 17 Site Area: 0.174ha Habitable Rooms: 48 No. of Residential Units: 16 Density: 92dph 276 hrph Council Interest: None continued/ 30 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 1/05 - P/562/04/CFU continued.....

b) Site Description • former petrol station with car wash on eastern side of Imperial Drive at junction with Vicarage Way, site now cleared and boarded up • ambulance depot lies to south of site, Rayners Lane Free Church to north, no. 2 Vicarage Way (a two storey semi-detached house) to west separated from former petrol station by access road serving further properties along Imperial Drive • opposite site, on other side of Imperial Drive, lies Imperial Court, a 3 storey block of flats with mature tree screening at front c) Proposal Details • full application following previous grant of outline consent • 3 storey building with 4 storey feature element on corner of Imperial Drive and Vicarage Way comprising 16 flats • building to be of modern design with domed and monopitch roof elements and overhanging eaves • balconies fronting Imperial Drive and Vicarage Way (but deleted from rear) • flats to be 2 bed • 600mm high brick wall with railings above on boundaries with Imperial Drive and Vicarage Way, 1.8m high close-boarded fence on boundary with ambulance depot • 17 car parking spaces at rear accessed via service road which is part of site but with access through maintained • 410m2 of usable rear amenity space with setting space at front and sides d) Relevant History

P/668/03/COU Outline: Redevelopment to provide 19 flats REFUSED in part 3, part 4 storey building with access & 10-JUL-03 parking Reasons for refusal: “1. The proposed development, by reason of its size, bulk and siting would be visually obtrusive and out of character with neighbouring properties, would not respect the scale and massing of these properties, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the neighbouring residents. 2. The proposed development, by reason of density and excessive site coverage by buildings and hard-surfacing would comprise an overdevelopment of the site reflected in the inadequate levels of parking and usable rear amenity space, to the detriment of the character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring residents. 3. The proposed development by virtue of its height and inclusion of rear balconies/terraces would give rise to overlooking of adjacent residential premises resulting in a loss of privacy and residential amenity.”

continued/

31 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/05 - P/562/04/CFU continued.....

P/1711/03/COU Outline: Redevelopment to provide 16 GRANTED (resident permit restricted) flats in part 3, part 12-SEP-03 4 storey building with access and parking e) Applicant’s Statement • flats redesigned from outline scheme in order that bedroom windows are at the rear, the quietest part of the site • balconies at rear and side have been removed, increasing privacy of adjacent residents • overall height and bulk remain as approved f) Consultations EA: No objections subject to conditions TWU: Comments awaited

Advertisement Major Development Expiry 08-APR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 59 1 29-MAR-04

Summary of Response: building too high; restricting light to buildings and gardens on Vicarage Way; totally out of keeping with buildings in vicinity

APPRAISAL

1) Housing Policy There have been no material changes in circumstances since the outline scheme was approved. The site comprises a formerly developed piece of land and is suitable for housing development. Decontamination works have been approved following the outline consent, and have been implemented.

2) Accessibility A planning condition requiring the inclusion of lifetime homes on the ground floor of the building is proposed and would accord with the Council’s access policies. A condition and informative are also proposed to ensure satisfactory levels of access for the building as a whole.

3) Visual and Residential Amenity The proposal does not differ significantly from the elevations submitted with the approved outline scheme. Front balconies have been extended and those to the side and rear deleted. Materials would include buff brickwork and glazing blocks.

The shortest distances to the boundary with the nearest adjacent residential property, 2 Vicarage Way, would be 20.5m for the 3 storey element and 27m for the 4 storey element, thus exceeding the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance minimum requirements. continued/

32 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/05 - P/562/04/CFU continued.....

Overall it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in visual and residential amenity terms, having a similar relationship to adjoining properties as the scheme previously approved in outline.

4) Parking and Highways Issues The number of parking spaces and the layout remains as approved for the outline scheme and no highway objections are raised. The former use as a petrol station would have generated substantially more vehicular activity than the proposed flats. The flats would be resident permit restricted as the site is within a controlled parking zone.

5) Consultation Responses Compared to the previously approved scheme there would be a marginal increase in eaves and ridge heights of some 0.4m. This is not considered to have a material impact in this location. The Council S.P.G. distances to properties at the rear would be met as noted above.

33 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

1/06 HARROW HOSPITAL, ROXETH HILL, HARROW, P/246/04/CFU/TW HARROW HOSPITAL Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

CONVERSION AND EXTENSION TO SIDDONS HOUSE AND COTTAGE HOSPITAL FOR 20 FLATS, 5 TERRACED HOUSES, 3 BLOCKS TO PROVIDE 71 FLATS, HOSTEL AND PARKING

SCOTT WILSON (REBEKAH JUBB) for BARRATT NORTH LONDON

1/07 HARROW HOSPITAL, ROXETH HILL, HARROW, P/329/04/CFU/TW HARROW HOSPITAL Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

CONVERSION AND EXTENSION TO SIDDONS HOUSE AND COTTAGE HOSPITAL FOR 20 FLATS, 5 TERRACED HOUSES, 3 BLOCKS TO PROVIDE 71 FLATS, HOSTEL AND PARKING (DUPLICATE)

SCOTT WILSON (REBEKAH JUBB) for BARRATT NORTH LONDON

1/08 HARROW HOSPITAL, ROXETH HILL, HARROW, P/248/04/CLB/AB HARROW HOSPITAL Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: DEMOLITION, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CONVERSION TO 15 NO. RESIDENTIAL UNITS

SCOTT WILSON (REBEKAH JUBB) for BARRATT NORTH LONDON

1/09 HARROW HOSPITAL, ROXETH HILL, HARROW, P/331/04/CLB/AB HARROW HOSPITAL Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: DEMOLITION, INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CONVERSION TO 15 NO. RESIDENTIAL UNITS (DUPLICATE)

SCOTT WILSON (REBEKAH JUBB) for BARRATT NORTH LONDON Continued/…..

34 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

1/10 HARROW HOSPITAL, ROXETH HILL, HARROW P/247/04/CCA/TW Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT: DEMOLITION OF SYDNEY WALTON NURSES HOME, ERIC SHORT HOUSE, MORTUARY, EXTENSIONS TO COTTAGE HOSPITAL AND OUTBUILDINGS

SCOTT WILSON (REBEKAH JUBB) for BARRATT NORTH LONDON

1/11 HARROW HOSPITAL, ROXETH HILL, HARROW P/330/04/CCA/TW Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT: DEMOLITION OF SIDNEY WALTON NURSES HOME, ERIC SHORT HOUSE, MORTUARY, EXTENSIONS TO COTTAGE HOSPITAL AND OUTBUILDINGS

SCOTT WILSON (REBEKAH JUBB) for BARRATT NORTH LONDON

RECOMMENDATION

P/246/04/CFU & P/329/04/CFU

Plan Nos: 973/01, 973/02, 973/03H, 973/05B, 973/07/D, 973/10/C, 973/11/C, 973/20/D, 973/21/D, 973/22/D, 973/23/D, 973/24/D, 973/27/F, 973/30/C, 973/32/C, 973/40/E, 973/41/E, 973/42/E, 973/50, 973/51, 973/52/A, 973/53, 973/54, 973/55/A, 973/60, 973/61/A, 973/62, 973/63/A, 973/71, 973/74/D, 973/75/D, 973/76/D, 973/77/D, 973/78/D, 973/06/D

Continued/…..

35 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

Inform the applicant that:

1. The proposal is acceptable subject to the completion of a legal agreement within one year (or such period as the Council may determine) of the date of the Committee decision on this application relating to: i) retention of the adjacent bus stop ii) financial contribution to HERS £25,000 iii) if required, a financial contribution to increased parking restrictions on neighbouring highway(s) iv) the applicant will provide affordable housing in the form of a 45 bedroom YMCA Home. The building shall be completed by no later than the 70th occupation of the private units.

2. A formal decision notice, subject to the planning conditions noted below, will be issued only upon the completion, by the applicant, of the aforementioned legal agreement

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to be Approved 3 Fencing to be Approved 4 Fencing during Construction 5 Highway - Closing of Access(es) 6 Highway - Approval of Construction 7 Highway - Visibility - 3 8 Landscaping to be Approved 9 Landscaping to be Implemented 10 Landscaping - Existing Trees to be Retained 11 Trees - Underground Works to be Approved 12 Trees - Protective Fencing 13 Landscape Management Plan 14 No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule. REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the appearance of the development. 15 Levels to be Approved 16 Refuse Arrangements - Buildings 17 Water Storage Works

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 3 Standard Informative 35 – CDM Regulations 1994

Continued/…..

36 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E4 Protection of Structural Features E6 High Standard of Design E8 Areas of Special Character E35 Locally Listed Buildings - Retention and Maintenance E36 Locally Listed Buildings - Replacement Design and Scale E37 Use of Statutorily and Locally Listed Buildings E38 Conservation Areas - Character E39 Conservation Areas - Priority over other Policies E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development H8 Residential Density H9 Provision of Affordable Housing T13 Car Parking Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SEP5 Structural Features SD1 Quality of Design SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens SD3 Mixed-Use Development D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy D12 Statutorily Listed Buildings D16 Conservation Areas D18 Conservation Area Priority T13 Parking Standards H5 Residential Density H6 Affordable Housing

Continued/…..

37 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

P/248/04/CLB & P/331/04/CLB

1 Time Limit – Listed Buildings 2 Detailed drawings, specifications, or samples of materials as appropriate in respect of the following shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority before the relevant part of the work is begun: a) all proposed new materials and finishes b) A repair methodology for existing joinery including windows, doors, skirtings, architraves and cornices and details of any removal or replacement of such joinery. c) rainwater goods d) A repair methodology and schedule for structural timber repairs or replacement e) Full information relating to any strengthening of roofs or floors f) New windows and doors g) Full details of damp treatments h) Details of any necessary works in connection with fire proofing i) Details of bulkheads j) Landscaping treatment between the Cottage Hospital and Roxeth Hill, and between the Cottage Hospital and the access road The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. 3 All works of making good to the retained fabric, whether internal or external, shall be finished to match adjacent original work with regard to the methods used, and to materials, colour, texture and profile. 4 Listed Building - Services and Fittings 5 Listed Building - Protection of Interior

38 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens D12 Statutorily Listed Buildings D16 Conservation Areas D18 Conservation Area Priority

P/247/04/CCA

RECOMMENDATION

GRANT conservation area consent in accordance with the works described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions:-

1 Time Limit - Listed Bldg./Cons. Area Consent 2 The demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been made, and planning permission has been granted for the development for which the contract provides. REASON: To protect the appearance of the:- (a) area (b) listed building (c) conservation area

INFORMATIVE: SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANT OF LISTED BUILDING CONSENT OR CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT: The decision to grant Listed Building or Conservation Area Consent has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E34 Statutorily Listed Building E37 Use of Statutorily and Locally Listed Buildings Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: D12 Statutorily Listed Buildings D15 The Use of Statutorily and Locally Listed Buildings

Continued/…..

39 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

P/330/04/CCA

GRANT conservation area consent in accordance with the works described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions:-

Continued/…..

40 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area (E38, E39) (D16, D18) 2) Character and Setting of Listed Building (E34, E37) (D12) 3) Amenity of Neighbours (E45) (D4, D5) 4) Access/Highway Safety/Car Parking (T13) (T13) 5) Affordable Housing (H9) (H6) 6) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character Listed Building: Grade II Conservation Area: Roxeth Hill Car Parking Standard: 142 (120) max Justified: 98 (98) Provided: 100 Site Area: 1.49 ha No. of Residential Units: 98 Council Interest: None b) Site Description

the site is located on the southern side of Roxeth Hill, close to its junction with London Road • the site is within the Roxeth Hill Conservation Area and the Harrow Hill Area of Special Character • the site has a frontage to Roxeth Hill of approximately 220m, interrupted by no. 66 Roxeth Hill, which is a small residence associated with Christ Church • there are significant level differences within the site, which drops away from the Roxeth Hill frontage to the south, and also from the boundary with 'Sheridans' towards the west. The difference in level is some 14m at the maximum • there are several buildings on the site and, since the healthcare use ceased, some buildings were demolished Continued/…..

41 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

• the original hospital building fronting onto the road is an attractive largely two storey building of brick with stone dressings, incorporating gables and dormers, dating from 1906, with additions dating from 1916 and 1925, this main building is Listed Grade II. • to the rear the building has been substantially added to by a series of two, three and four storey extensions which reflect little of the older buildings intrinsic character and quality, these later additions have little architectural merit • the main hospital building is included on the English Heritage Register of Buildings at Risk • Siddons House, at the higher part of the site frontage, is a two/three storey building dating from 1905, the building is rendered and has a hipped, tiled roof with tall chimneys and locally listed. To the rear is an extensive lawned area • The area to the rear of the main hospital building and its extensions forms the deepest part of the site (110m) and accommodates areas formerly used for car parking • the remainder of the site, to the west of Christ Church accommodates the Sydney Walton Nurses hostel, which has been substantially extended to the west and includes a modern single storey hall, with tennis courts to the rear • access to the main site is gained from Roxeth Hill via two separate driveways both to the west of the main hospital building • the Sydney Walton Hostel does not benefit from vehicular access to Roxeth Hill • the site boundaries are characterised by mature trees and shrubs which provide effective screening from the surrounding area • to the north the site fronts Roxeth Hill, on the opposite side of which are a number of dwellings and the larger flatted developments of Glasfryn Court and House • to the east it adjoins a number of dwellings and a modern flat development of six or seven stories in height (Elmfield Close) • to the south the site adjoins the rear gardens of properties on Georgian Way • the site has an extensive boundary with the Grade II Listed Christ Church and its graveyard bb) Listed Building Description

• The building is a Cottage Hospital and was designed in 1906 by Arnold Mitchell, then extended to the west in 1915 for war use, and further extended to the south west in 1925. Both these extensions are possibly by the same architect. The further extensions to east and south of mid-late twentieth century are not of special interest. The building is of red brick, laid in English bond, and with bands of artificial stone and with machine tile clay roofs. It is of an Arts and Crafts style and in two parallel ranges. • EXTERIOR: symmetrical north elevation. One-storey and dormer attic; 6-window range. Central entrance consisting of double-leaf half glazed doors set within eared artificial stone surround with keyblocks and in the frieze is the inscription 'Harrow Hospital'. All ground floor windows are framed by banded brick and stone. There are Continued/…..

42 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

3 ridge stacks, symmetrically placed. 2-storey hipped pavillion set back to west, added 1916. Two-storey hipped pavilion set further back to west of last, added 1925. Rear, south, elevation with 5 gables to attic fitted with various replacement casements of mid to late C20. Ground floor obscured by mid to late C20 extensions. • INTERIOR: front block has long east-west corridor with double swing doors at intervals. Central large niche, dogleg staircase with oak handrail and square corner posts, central stained glass window with swags and portrait of Jesus, round-headed arch and bronze plaque commemorating VAD during the Great War.

Cottage Hospital: • Demolition of rear 20th century ranges • Conversion of Cottage Hospital to residential use to provide 14 2 bed units. • Replacement of 20th century corridor link with two storey flat roofed wing • Three storey double gabled extension to the rear of the 1925 block, replacing 2 storey flat roofed 1950s extension

Siddons House: • minor infill extensions at the rear ground floor projecting wings and conversion to provide five flats (3 x 1 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom)

'Block C': • construction of a part 2/part 3 storey terrace of five houses • the block would be sited at the rear of the lawned area behind Siddons House • the proposed block would contain many design elements to reflect the 'Arts and Crafts' inspired Siddons House

'Block A': • a block of mainly 2 and 3 storeys, to provide 14 x 2 bed flats • the block would be sited adjacent to no. 66 Roxeth Hill, on the Roxeth Hill frontage • the building would be stepped to take account of the fall in ground levels • the proposed design is 'Arts and Crafts' inspired

Hostel: • proposed mainly 2 storey and part 3 storey building • the proposal shows a YMCA building with 45 rooms of accommodation and community facilities in the form of a crèche and a studio/hall • the building would replace the existing Sydney Walton Nurses Home, on the Roxeth Hill frontage • its design would contain elements of the Arts and Crafts movement • to the rear of this part of the site and behind the Vicarage, a car park of 19 spaces is proposed for shared use between the Church and the proposed YMCA Continued/…..

43 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

'Block B' • a block varying from 3 storeys to 4 storeys in height – with accommodation in the roof and would contain 36 flats (10 x 1 bedroom and 26 x 2 bedroom) • the block would measure a maximum of 38m in width and 23m in depth • the building would contain traditional fixtures, pitched and tiled roof, bay windows, dormer and gable roofs

'Block D': • would be sited at the rear of the site • at its deepest part it would be 3 storeys in height with an additional floor of accommodation within the roof • the block would measure a maximum of 32m in width and 15m in depth and would accommodate 21 flats (12 x 1 bed and 9 x 2 bed) • the block would be sited between 10m and 12.5m from the rear boundary of the site

Car Parking: • for the main part of the site 98 car parking spaces are proposed, 59 of which are underground (Blocks B & D), two are in the form of undercroft parking at Block C, the remaining 37 are surface spaces • the proposed hostel site contains provision for 19 spaces to be shared with the Church d) Relevant History

WEST/833/02/FUL Conv. & Ext To Siddons Hse & Cottage Hosp.For REFUSED 20 Flats Newbuild 5 Houses & 73 Flats Hostel & 24-MAR-03 Parking APPEAL DISMISSED 07-NOV-03

WEST/837/02/FUL Conv.& Ext To Siddons Hse & Cottage Hosp.For REFUSED 20 Flts New Build 5 Houses & 71 Flats, Hostel & 24-MAR-03 Parking APPEAL DISMISSED 07-NOV-03

WEST/835/02/LBC Listed building consent: demolition, internal and REFUSED external alterations associated with conversion to 24-MAR-03 15 no. Residential units APPEAL DISMISSED 07-NOV-03

Continued/…..

44 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

WEST/836/02/LBC Listed building consent: demolition, internal and REFUSED external alterations associated with conversion to 24-MAR-03 15 no. Residential units APPEAL DISMISSED 07-NOV-03

e) P/246/04/CFU & P/329/04/CFU

Advertisement Major Development

1ST Notification Sent Replies Expiry 207 8 14-APR-04

Summary of Responses: Out of character, increased traffic, traffic safety, building too large, object to demolition, affect amenity, too many dwellings.

2nd Notification Sent Replies Expiry 207 0 14-APR-04

P/248/04/CLB & P/331/04/CLB

Conservation Area Consent Block B is still too large but the changes made are welcomed. Would prefer to see 2 blocks the same size as Block D, which would consequently reduce bulk, increase amenity space and would lessen the impact on views form the church to the site.

Advertisement Major Development

1ST Notification Sent Replies Expiry 207 8 14-APR-04

Summary of Responses: Out of character, increased traffic, traffic safety, building too large, object to demolition, affect amenity, too many dwellings.

2nd Notification Sent Replies Expiry 207 0 14-APR-04

Continued/…..

45 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

Listed building consent

Consultations

English Heritage: Flexible authorisation

Advertisement Alteration/Extension to listed building

1ST Notification Sent Replies Expiry 205 2 14-APR-04

Summary of Responses: Out of character, overdevelopment, traffic safety, building too large and ugly.

P/247/04/CCA

Advertisement Demolition in Conservation Expiry Area 01-APR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 198 1 26-MAR-04

Response: Object to loss of Sydney Walton House.

P/330/04/CCA

Advertisement Demolition in Conservation Expiry Area 01-APR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 198 3 26-MAR-04

Response: Object to loss of Sydney Walton House. Object to loss of hospital buildings.

APPRAISAL

1) Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area The character of the Conservation Area is diverse with a mix of styles and densities with no single defined architectural form. The defining influences for this site may be drawn from the following: Siddons House (Local List) and the Cottage Hospital Continued/…..

46 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

(Grade II Listed) which are both influenced by the Arts and Crafts movement. To the rear (south east) of the site, flats at Elmfield Close are the nearest form of development being an imposing, relatively modern development set on significantly higher ground. To the west is the cemetery to Christ Church which contains a number of trees. Beyond that is the Grade II Listed Christ Church.

The character and impact of Siddons House and the Cottage Hospital on the streetscene has influenced the design and detailing of proposed Block A and the proposed Hostel. Block A would have steep hipped roofs with hipped dormer windows. The window proportions and design would reflect those of the existing building. The height and massing has been divided into distinct elements in order to, inter alia, accommodate the steep fall in levels. This block was found to be acceptable at the aforementioned appeal.

The proposed hostel, again, contains a number of these details, and is identical to the appeal scheme.

Proposed Block C draws heavily for its inspiration from Siddons House, and due to the configuration of the site would be viewed in association with Siddons House. The proposed distance between the blocks (36m) is considered to be sufficient to respect the setting of the Locally Listed building and the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. Again, this was found acceptable at the appeal.

In comparison with the appeal proposals, Blocks B and D have been revised significantly. The design of the appeal proposals was overtly modern with flat roofs. The current proposals revise the design which is now traditional in form and contains some elements found in the Cottage Hospital. In comparison with the appeal schemes, the overall height proposed for Block B has been reduced by approximately 3.3m in comparison with the larger appeal, and 0.9m in comparison with the smaller scheme. The eaves line has also been reduced by approximately 4m. additionally the roof would step, in three elements, to reflect the fall of the land from east to west.

In considering the appeal scheme, the Inspector criticised the height, bulk, lack of articulation and no references from surrounding buildings. It is considered that the proposed revised scheme satisfactorily addresses these concerns.

Revisions to block D have also been made and its design and proposed materials would be similar to proposed block B.

Continued/…

47 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

2) Character and setting of listed building

The Cottage Hospital is in a state of disrepair and is on the English Heritage Register of Buildings at Risk. Bringing the building back into a viable use and ensuring its repair is desirable and would enhance its character and in turn the character of the conservation area. In terms of the proposed demolition, this would be restricted to the modern hospital blocks at the rear, which are recognised in the list description as of no special interest. Indeed their removal would enhance the setting and appearance of the listed building. Two modern extensions are proposed to be replaced by extensions in a similar style to the original building, thereby improving its rear elevation. The Inspector did not raise any objections to the proposals for the listed building at the public inquiry.

Much of the original interior character of the building has been eroded over time due to its use as a working hospital. The interior is for the most part plain and stark. The key areas of interest are the entrance hall and its stairs and the original plan form of a long east-west corridor with double swing doors at intervals. The stairs and entrance hall remain untouched. The central corridor and main plan form remain, although the large wards off the corridor are subdivided to form the individual units. The double doors are retained but bathrooms are installed at the far ends of the corridor and some storage is created within the corridor spaces, where they become part of private units. Original fabric, such as lath and plaster ceilings and floorboards are proposed for retention wherever possible, although there is significant amounts of dry and wet rot within the building which will require some removal of fabric. Some of the ward spaces are double height and this is being retained in flat 2. Elsewhere where ceilings are to be lowered, they would be set back from the windows, so this alteration would not be perceived from the exterior.

In terms of the change of use, the Planning Brief which the Council adopted suggested that residential use was considered the most appropriate use for the site. The applicants propose smaller units, which would involve considerable sub-division, but given the extensive alterations within the building and resultant loss of much of its original character, this approach is considered acceptable. Furthermore, the key areas of the building’s internal plan form are proposed for retention.

The current setting of the listed building is not ideal. To its rear are a series of two, three and four storey extensions, built in the 1950s and 1960s which reflect little of the older building’s intrinsic character and quality. Since these twentieth century additions are physically linked to the original building, they too are statutorily listed, but the list description makes it clear that they are considered to have little merit. Behind the four storey Florence Nightingale House is a large area of hard surfacing and a series of single storey sheds/garages and the laundry buildings, which are not considered to have any architectural merit. Their removal would enhance the setting at the rear of the listed building. Continued/…..

48 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

The immediate setting of the building would be enhanced by formal landscaping to its rear, replacing the single storey modern extensions and scrubland. The repair and reuse of the locally listed Siddons House would also enhance the setting of the listed building. The design and scale of Block B has changed significantly from the previous appealed scheme. The design now picks up on the Arts and Crafts style of the Hospital using narrow gables, long windows and facing brickwork and render. Whilst Block B is still certainly large in terms of plan form and height, it is not considered that it would dominate the listed building, partly because of the substantial change in levels on the site, because it is set much further away than the current nursing block and because its design is a modern interpretation of the main block. The reduction in visible parking would also enhance the setting of the listed building.

3) Amenity of Neighbours

The Inspector objected to one aspect of the development in relation to the effect on the amenity of neighbours, namely the effects of proposed block D on the amenity of residents in Georgian Close. The Inspector commented……… “from my observations at the site visit, it seems to me that a large part of the gardens would be dominated by the proximity of the proposed new block.”

The proposed block D in the appeal would have been located at a distance of 6m to 8m from the relevant boundary. This has now been increased to 10m to 12.8m. In addition, considerable changes have been made to the design of the block, which would now be similar to proposed block B. The elevation facing Georgian Close would also have a hipped roof which would reduce the bulk of the block. It is considered that these alterations are sufficient to overcome the Inspector’s concerns in this regard.

4) Access/Highway Safety/Car Parking

The proposals are almost identical to the appeal scheme. The Inspector concluded that she was satisfied with the provision of parking spaces and considered that the development would not cause problems in terms of highway safety or the free flow of traffic on Roxeth Hill.

5) Affordable Housing

Policy H6 requires the provision of an element of affordable housing as part of larger residential developments. Officers of Housing Services within this Authority have confirmed that in principle a YMCA hostel is an appropriate means of satisfying this requirement.

Continued/…..

49 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items1/06, 1/07, 1/08, 1/09, 1/10, 1/11 P/246/04/CFU, P/329/04/CFU, P/248/04/CLB, P/331/04/CLB, P/247/04/CCA & P/330/04/CCA continued…..

6) Consultation Responses

Out of character Increased traffic Traffic safety Building too large Addressed above Object to demolition Affect neighbours amenity Too many dwellings

50 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

1/12 THE ORANGE TREE P.H. 1 PINNER GREEN, PINNER P/196/04/CDP/GM Ward: PINNER

APPROVAL OF DETAILS PURSUANT TO P.P WEST/902/02/OUT FOR 3 STOREY BUILDING TO PROVIDE 22 FLATS

GILLETT MACLEOD PARTNERSHIP for HOWARTH HOMES PLC

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 02/2197/6C; 7A; 8A; 9A; 10A

APPROVE details of design, external appearance and landscaping pursuant to conditions 1, 5 and 7 of outline planning permission WEST/902/02/OUT (allowed on appeal under reference APP/M5450/A/02/1116411).

INFORMATIVES 1 The conditions remaining to be discharged are nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. 2 The applicant is advised that notwithstanding details indicated on the submitted plan of the refuse bin store, the relevant planning condition is not discharged as part of this application and the location indicated may not be acceptable. 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Character and Appearance of Area (E6) (SD1) 2) Residential Amenity (E45) (D4, D5) 3) Consultation Responses

Continued/…..

51 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/12 - P/196/04/CDP continued…..

INFORMATION

This application was deferred at the meeting of the Development Control Committee on 17th March in order to obtain revised plans. These have now been received and involve a reduction in depth of the corner element of the building of 2.5m to more closely accord with the siting approved previously with the outline permission. a) Summary

Site Area: 0.31 ha Habitable Rooms: 67 No. of Residential Units: 22 Density: 216 hrph 71 dph Council Interest: None b) Site Description

• Large public house and small garden centre located on southern corner of junction of Pinner Green, Uxbridge Road, Elm Park Road and Pinner Hill Road • Abutting the site are two storey residential properties at no. 51 Elm Park Road and 1 & 3 Bell Close to the south, with nos. 3 – 7 Pinner Green to the west comprising a three storey terrace with retail units on the ground floor and residential flats above • Two storey residential properties on Elm Park Road opposite, two storey properties on Pinner Green opposite with commercial uses on ground floor and residential use above • Montesole Court on northern side of junction comprises three storey residential flats • Existing access to public house car park on Elm Park Road • Dropped kerb and parking spaces accessed from Pinner Green in front of garden centre c) Proposal Details

• Reserved matters application seeking approval to design, external appearance and landscaping details following appeal decision allowing redevelopment of site to provide 22 flats • Building to be three storey with varied roof line comprising hipped and crown elements with subordinate hipped features and 2 flat roofed connecting features with glazing blocks • Rear elevation to include balconies at first and second floor level • Materials to comprise yellow multi-stock bricks and black roof tiles, buff concrete pavers, block tarmac and metal railings painted black • Site frontage to have railings with brick piers in front of hedgerow • Landscaping to include 2 ‘bird cherry’, 2 birch and 2 mountain ash trees to frontage, together with 3 ‘wild cherry’, 2 mountain ash and 1 birch tree at the rear. There would also be mixed species hedgerows at the rear around the car park Continued/…..

52 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/12 - P/196/04/CDP continued…..

• There would be an acoustic fence on the boundary with 51 Elm Park Road rising in height from 1.8m at the frontage to 2m at the rear, and on the boundaries with 1 and 3 Bell Close • Bin store indicated on site frontage d) Relevant History

LBH/21178 Change Of Use Of Part Of Public House Garden GRANTED To Garden Centre 03-JUN-82

WEST/356/94/FUL Extension To Car Park With New Access, New GRANTED Patio Area And External Staircase 07-SEP-94

WEST/555/98/FUL Single Storey Front And Side Extensions And GRANTED External Alterations, And Relocation Of Car Park 28-OCT-98 With Rear Vehicular Access

WEST/902/02/OUT Outline: 3 Storey Building to Provide 22 Flats REFUSED (Revised) 14-MAR-03

Reason for Refusal:-

“The proposed development would not conform with the character of the local area, and would amount to overdevelopment due to the excessive bulk and massing on a prominent corner and the underprovision of parking and amenity space contrary to the relevant policies of the borough Unitary Development Plan.”

Allowed on Appeal 20-AUG-03 e) Consultations

Thames Water Utilities Ltd: No Objection Environment Agency: Comments Awaited

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 45 7 17-FEB-04 Summary of Responses: Would spoil look of Pinner Green and its character; would mean more cars and accidents; object to loss of established and successful business; previous objections still stand; object to siting of bin store adjacent to no. 51 Elm Park Road due to noise and nuisance; fencing should be acoustic fencing as endorsed by Appeal Inspector; fencing only 1.8m, is too low; concern at safety whilst works undertaken; concern at lighting of car park; insufficient parking; security concerns if car park not secure; developer should be asked to pay for an additional traffic lane at the exit from Elm Park Road to permit a left turning lane on filter light.

Continued/…..

53 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/12 - P/196/04/CDP continued…..

APPRAISAL

1) Character and Appearance of Area

The outline scheme allowed on appeal established siting and means of access and also included illustrative elevations. The Inspector commented that the illustrative plans showed a curved three-storey building with varying roof heights but which would not be significantly higher than the public house or adjoining commercial blocks or flats opposite, and that the effect on the appearance of the locality would be acceptable. The details pursuant elevations differ from the outline illustrative elevations principally by a simplification of the roof form and the addition of rear balconies. The eaves level has been raised but not the overall height. The front boundary treatment would be less fussy, with railings and brick piers instead of railing above a dwarf brick wall. The building would also project 0.5m further forward at the junction of Pinner Green and Elm Park Road than previously indicated, however this is not considered to be a material alteration given the scale of the building and the appeal decision.

The landscaping proposed would soften the appearance of the site and be appropriate at the location with specimen trees to the front and rear. The amenity space at the rear would be the same as for the outline plans.

Overall the details of design, external appearance and landscaping are considered to have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area.

2) Residential Amenity

Whilst the site borders the gardens of houses at 1 and 3 Bell Close and 51 Elm Park Road the Inspector concluded in his appeal decision that the effect on the amenities of adjoining residents would be acceptable. The only stipulation he made was that there should be an acoustic fence on the boundary with 51 Elm Park Road and this is included in the submission of details. Compared to the outline illustrative plans, rear balconies have been added at first and second floor level, however there would be 17m from the flank boundary with 51 Elm Park Road at the closest point and 14.5m measured at an oblique angle from 1 Bell Close with a building in between. In these circumstances it is not considered that there would be any issue of overlooking or loss of privacy.

Continued/…..

54 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 1/12 - P/196/04/CDP continued…..

3) Consultation Responses

The issue of the principle of the redevelopment has already been established by the appeal decision. The bin store has been relocated away from the neighbours boundary as requested and an acoustic fence would be provided adjacent to residential gardens. The proposal does not include any lighting of the car park. In terms of security, the car park would be gated with effectively 24 hour surveillance from the new flats whereas the existing public house car park is open and the garden centre use closed at night. The Council’s Highways Engineer has not considered an additional lane a pre-requisite of granting the proposal and neither did the Inspector when considering the outline scheme. The likely traffic generation and the access arrangements are likely to be an improvement upon the existing situation for the public house and garden centre. The amendment suggested would render the proposal as submitted impossible to implement as the size of the site would be affected.

55 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 SECTION 2 - OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR GRANT

2/01 2 BYRON HILL ROAD, HARROW P/179/04/CFU/TW Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL REDEVELOPMENT: 3 STOREY BLOCK TO PROVIDE 9 DWELLINGS AS AN EXTENSION TO KINGS HEAD, ACCESS AND PARKING

R FARR - ARCHER ARCHITECTS for MACLEOD & FAIRBRIAR 2/02 2 BYRON HILL ROAD, HARROW P/181/04/CCA/TW Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT: DEMOLITION OF ASSEMBLY ROOMS AND DETACHED WORKSHOP BUILDING.

R FARR, ARCHER ARCHITECTS for MACLEOD & FAIRBRIAR 2/03 2 BYRON HILL ROAD, HARROW P/180/04/CLB/AB Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: 3 STOREY BLOCK TO PROVIDE 9 DWELLINGS AS AN EXTENSION TO THE KINGS HEAD

R FARR, ARCHER ARCHITECTS for MACLEOD & FAIRBRIAR

P/179/04/CFU

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: PS/01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s):

continued/

56 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 tems 2/01, 2/02 & 2/03 – P/179/04/CFU & P/181/04/CCA & P/180/04/CLB continued.....

6 Landscaping to be Implemented 7 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the car parking, turning and loading area(s) shown on the approved plan number(s) PS/06 have been constructed and surfaced with impervious materials, and drained in accordance with details submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The car parking spaces shall be permanently marked out and used for no other purpose, at any time, without the written permission of the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory provision of parking areas, to safeguard the appearance of the locality and in the interests of highway safety. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for:- 8 (a) The storage and disposal of refuse/waste (b) and vehicular access thereto has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied or used until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To ensure adequate standards of hygiene and refuse/waste collection without prejudice to the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties. INFORMATIVES: 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 3 Standard Informative 35 – CDM Regulations 1994 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E5 Protection of Character of Conservation Areas E6 High Standard of Design E38 Conservation Areas - Character E39 Conservation Areas - Priority over other Policies E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development T13 Car Parking Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy D16 Conservation Areas T13 Parking Standards

continued/

57 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 tems 2/01, 2/02 & 2/03 – P/179/04/CFU & P/181/04/CCA & P/180/04/CLB continued.....

P/181/04/CCA

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: P4/09, P4/10

GRANT Conservation Area Consent in accordance with the works described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s):

1 Time Limit - Listed Bldg./Cons. Area Consent 2 The demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been made, and planning permission has been granted for the development for which the contract provides IREASON: To protect the appearance of the conservation area

P/180/04/CLB

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: PS/01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10

GRANT Listed Building Consent in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s): 1 Time Limit - Listed Bldg./Cons. Area Consent 2 Detailed drawings, specifications, or samples of materials as appropriate in respect of the following shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority before the relevant part of the work is begun: (a) the roofing materials (b) brickwork (c) the boundary treatment including vehicular gates within the arch (d) windows and doors The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. continued/ 58 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Items 2/01, 2/02 & 2/03 – P/179/04/CFU & P/181/04/CCA & P/180/04/CLB continued.....

INFORMATIVE SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANT OF LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: The decision to grant listed building consent has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E5 Protection of Character of Conservation Areas E6 High Standard of Design E34 Statutorily Listed Building E38 Conservation Areas - Character E39 Conservation Areas - Priority over other Policies E34 Statutorily Listed Buildings Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens D4 Standard of Design and Layout D16 Conservation Areas D12 Statutorily listed buildings

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1) Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area (E6, E38, E39) (SD1, D16) 2) Character and setting of listed building (E34) (D12) 3) Parking/Highway Considerations (T13) (T13) 4) Amenity of Neighbours( E45) (D4, D5) 5) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary Area of Special Character: Conservation Area: Harrow on the Hill Village Car Parking Standard: ) Justified: ) See Report Provided: ) No. of Residential Units: 9 No. of Habitable Rooms: 29 Site Area: 0.107ha Density: 90 dph 287 hrph b) Site Description • the site is located on the north west side of Byron Hill, close to its junction with High Street • the application site, now vacant, was occupied by the former Assembly Rooms (recently demolished) and the former Harrow Motors workshop, also now demolished

continued/ 59 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Items 2/01, 2/02 & 2/03 – P/179/04/CFU & P/181/04/CCA & P/180/04/ CLB continued.....

Listed Building Description • The oldest part of the building dates from the 18th century. It is of three-storeys with later stucco rendering. The building has a central columned porch with later glazed sides and front. It has a parapet in front of a slate roof with end chimney stacks. The central section of the front part of the building is Edwardian and the Assembly Rooms are late 19th century. Behind the frontage buildings are various later accretions built in connection with the hotel/pub use. c) Proposal Details • demolish the workshop building (Conservation Area Consent) and replace with a building which would bridge the access road to the Kings Head redevelopment and occupy part of the Harrow Motors site • some modifications are proposed to the approved replacement for the Assembly Rooms • in total 9 units are proposed which amounts to 3 more than the approval d) Relevant History

For the Kings Head site:

WEST/143/02/FUL Conversion of existing buildings APPEALED AGAINST provision of new houses and flats, total NON 29 units and car parking DETERMINATION ALLOWED 06-JUN-03 P/1915/03/CFU Redevelopment to provide 10 APPEAL AGAINST dwellings in a 3 storey building with NON rooms in roof as an extension to DETERMINATION development allowed at appeal UNDETERMINED P/179/04/CFU e) Consultations CAAC: The proposed flat roof element does not fit well or look right in the streetscene

Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 04-MAR-04

1st Notification Sent Replies Expiry 132 8 05-APR-2004 Response: Demand for parking, highway safety, disruption during construction, too high effect on amenity, loss of light

2nd Notification Sent Replies Expiry 132 2 05-APR-2004

continued/

60 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/01, 2/02 & 2/03 –P/179/04/CFU & P/181/04/CCA & P/180/04/ CLB continued.....

P/181/04/CCA

Advertisement Demolition in Conservation Area Expiry 12-APR-2004

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 126 Awaited 06-APR-2004 P/180/04/CLB

Consultations English Heritage Awaited

Advertisement Extn/alteration to listed building Expiry 12-APR-2004

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 126 0 06-APR-2004

APPRAISAL

1) Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area The character of the Conservation Area is a mixture of commercial and residential properties mainly central around the Green. The residential properties display a degree of variety, from flats above commercial premises, small, tightly sited terraced houses, and more substantial detached houses.

The approved scheme features a replacement for the assembly rooms which would be subservient to the retained buildings. The proposal replicates this relationship and the proposed additional element of the extension would be reduced in height and bulk. This would result in each successive element being lower than the preceding one, as the levels fall on Byron Hill Road. The proposal would contain similar window and parapet features found elsewhere within the development.

The existing workshop building is not considered to have such intrinsic merit that its loss should be resisted.

2) Character and setting of listed building The existing workshop building is not considered to enhance the setting of the listed building or make a positive contribution to the streetscene so its replacement with a better designed building would enhance the setting of the listed building. The new building would not result in the loss of any more historic fabric than the consented schemes. The Kings Head has developed in a piecemeal, organic manner with discrete blocks built over time. The proposed building seeks to continue this tradition with a further discrete block, set lower than the rest both in terms of ridge height and heights of windows etc, so that it is subservient to the original building. Brickwork is proposed for the facing treatment, again to show the distinction between the blocks and to pick up on the original material of the Assembly Rooms, which were only rendered at a later date, and this render was confined to the front elevation. continued/

61 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Items 2/01 & 2/02 & 2/03 – P/179/04/CFU & P/181/04/CCA & P/180/04/ CLB continued.....

3) Parking/Highway Considerations The car parking provision for the approved scheme amounted to 1.58 spaces per unit. The proposal would result in the provision for the site of 1.5 per dwelling, a level which is considered to be acceptable.

4) Amenity of Neighbours The south west boundary of the site is shared with No. 2c Byron Hill Road, which is one of a pair of semi-detached houses. These houses are set well back from the road and the existing workshop building is approximately 4.5m forward of these houses. The existing building would not comply with the Council’s 45o Code employed in such situations. The proposal has been designed to comply with the 45o Code adjacent to the boundary with no. 2a Byron Hill Road. Further from the boundary the proposal does project closer to the road. It is considered that the proposed building represents an improvement in this respect.

5) Consultation Responses Addressed above, apart from disruption of construction – not material to planning.

62 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/04 1 ORLEY FARM ROAD, HARROW ON THE HILL, MIDDX P/218/04/CFU/TEM Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION WITH ACCOMMODATION IN ROOFSPACE

DAVID R YEAMAN & ASSOCIATES for MR & MRS DUNLOP

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 407/001, 020H

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match 3 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until there has been submitted to, and approved by, the local planning authority, a scheme of hard and soft landscape works which shall include a survey of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, indicating those to be retained and those to be lost. Details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of the development, shall also be submitted and approved, and carried out in accordance with such approval, prior to any demolition or any other site works, and retained until the development is completed. Soft landscape works shall include: planting plans, and schedule of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, and retention of the existing front boundary hedge. REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of the area, and to enhance the appearance of the development. 4 Landscaping to be Implemented

Continued/…..

63 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/04 - P/218/04/CFU continued….

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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E5 Protection of Character of Conservation Areas E6 High Standard of Design E8 Areas of Special Character E35 Locally Listed Buildings - Retention and Maintenance E38 Conservation Areas - Character E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy D13 Locally Listed Buildings - Retention and Maintenance D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas EP31 Areas of Special Character

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Character and Appearance of Conservation Area and Area of Special Character (E5, E6, E8, E38, E45) (SD1, SD2, D4, D17, EP31) 2) Impact on Locally Listed Building (E35) (D13) 3) Neighbouring Residential Amenity (E45) (D4, D5) 4) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character TPO Locally Listed Building Conservation Area: South Hill Avenue Council Interest: None

Continued/…..

64 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/04 - P/218/04/CFU continued….. b) Site Description

• Western side of Orley Farm Road within South Hill Avenue Conservation Area and Harrow on the Hill Area of Special Character • Modest 2-storey detached house, locally listed, detached garage in rear garden, access thereto on northern side of house • Detached house ‘Lauriston’ to south • Grounds of detached house ‘The Grange’ adjacent to northern boundary • Locality characterised by detached houses • Levels fall from north to south c) Proposal Details

• Single-storey rear extension projecting beyond southern flank wall of house, 6m depth x 10.5m width • Bedroom contained at 1st-floor level within pitched, hipped roof, lit by rear dormer window and velux windows • Single-storey side extension to northern flank wall, 1.1m wide x 6.5m depth, hipped roof over • Additional hardsurfacing proposed in front garden to provide turning head • New footpath to serve re-located front door d) Relevant History

WEST/425/01/FUL Detached 2 Storey 5 Bed Property With DEEMED Accommodation In Roof Space With Access & REFUSAL Parking 23-MAY-02

WEST/489/01/CAC Conservation Area Consent: Demolition Of DEEMED Detached House REFUSAL 23-MAY-02

WEST/719/02/FUL Part Single, Part Two Storey Side And Rear REFUSED Extensions And Single Storey Side Extension 17-SEP-02 With Access

Continued/…..

65 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/04 - P/218/04/CFU continued…..

WEST/1068/02/FUL Proposed 2 Storey Side/Rear Extension, Single REFUSED Storey Side Extension And Garage 16-DEC-02

Reason for Refusal:-

“The proposed extensions, by reason of their size, design and siting, would be obtrusive and overbearing, resulting a loss of space about the building and relate unsympathetically to the existing locally listed building, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the building and the Conservation Area, and neighbouring amenity.”

Appeal dismissed : 11-JUN-03 e) Consultations

CAAC: Object – over development with too many extensions and doubling the size of property. The contribution this building makes to the character and appearance of the conservation area is a modest cottage with interesting design features. The proposal would result in the loss of this cottage character.

Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 25-MAR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 5 2 11-MAR-04

Summary of Responses: Out of character with Conservation Area, character of property would be adversely affected.

APPRAISAL

1) Character and Appearance of Conservation Area and Area of Special Character

The Inspector who dismissed the appeal in relation to application W/1068/02/FUL had the following concerns:-

a) the size of the proposed extensions would dominate the form and style of the property; b) loss of the cottage-style character of the existing building; c) loss of gaps around the property. Continued/…..

66 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/04 - P/218/04/CFU continued…..

In terms of the latter, the appeal proposal showed rear and side extensions which projected to within 300mm of the boundary with Lauriston to the south. In relation to this property the previous side extension has been deleted and the rear extension now proposed would be sited some 3.3m from the boundary. The proposed side extension to the northern flank wall would be sited at least 2.2m from the boundary with The Grange compared with 1.2m in the appeal application. It is considered that these increased gaps about the building are sufficient to meet the Inspector’s concerns. In addition the height of the rear extension has been reduced by some 1.3m, providing more space at upper levels. The reduced scale of extension would make the existing building the dominant element of the enlarged building, with the sideways projection of the rear extension appearing as a subordinate wing, thereby retaining the predominant character of the existing house. The provision of the new footpath and additional hardsurfacing to enable a car to enter and leave the premises in forward gear is not objected to, particularly as the new area would be located behind the front boundary hedge.

It is considered in the light of the significant amendments which have been made that the character of the Conservation Area and Area of Special Character would be preserved by the proposals.

2) Impact on Locally Listed Building

The proposed extensions would leave the front elevation and the flank wall adjacent to Lauriston unchanged. These are the most prominent elevations in the streetscene.

The rear extension would be over 20m from the street and as previously discussed would be subordinate to the existing building. The proposals also replicate the form of fenestration and other existing design features and overall it is considered that an acceptable impact would be provided on the character and setting of this locally listed building.

3) Neighbouring Residential Amenity

The Inspector considered that the appeal scheme would provide acceptable relationships with neighbouring properties, and these scaled down proposals would provide improved relationships on adjacent amenity.

4) Consultation Responses

• Discussed in report

67 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/05 BRENT HOUSE, 214 KENTON RD, KENTON, SITE P/259/04/COU/TEM DETAILS Ward: KENTON WEST

OUTLINE: PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AT 4TH FLOOR LEVEL FOR OFFICE USE (CLASS B1)

DALTON WARNER DAVIS for HOMEGUARD PROPERTIES LTD

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 1/1250 plan, floor plans.

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Outline Permission 2 Approval of the details shown below (the "reserved matters") shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced: (a) design of the building(s) (b) external appearance of the building(s) REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted below have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority: (a) the building The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the locality.

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 3 Standard Informative 35 – CDM Regulations 1994

Continued/…..

68 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/05 - P/259/04/COU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Employment Policy (EM3) (EM4, EM23) 2) Appearance of Area (E6, E46, E47) (SD1, D4, D7) 3) Neighbouring Amenity (E46) (D4) 4) Traffic and Parking (T13) (T13) 5) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Town Centre Kenton Car Parking Standard: 15 additional (0 additional) Justified: See report Provided: 0 additional Site Area: 2,500m2 Floorspace: 494m2 additional Council Interest: None

Continued/…..

69 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/05 - P/259/04/COU continued….. b) Site Description

• North side of Kenton Road at eastern end of Kenton District Centre • Occupied by L-shaped mainly 4-storey building with supermarket on the ground-floor and 3 floors of offices over (Class B1) • Single-storey element at rear, five-storey high lift tower • Car park behind building with 34 spaces for offices accessed via eastern side of building, 22 spaces for supermarket • 2-storey commercial uses fronting onto Kenton Road in front of rear wing of building • 2-storey Solicitors offices with houses beyond to the east • residential premises on opposite side of Kenton Road within London Borough of Brent • 3-storey parade adjacent to western flank wall of building with houses in Willowcourt Avenue next to western boundary of rear car park • 2-storey houses in Hillbury Avenue beyond northern boundary of car park c) Proposal Details

• Outline application – siting and means of access to be determined • Provision of fourth-floor (fifth-storey) over most of office element of building • Front wall of proposal would be set back about 6.5m from main front wall of building • Remainder would be sited on top of existing third-floor • Illustrative elevations show slate covered mansard roof treatment with dormer windows d) Relevant History

HAR/4572/F Erection Of Supermarket Shop With Offices Over 18-MAR-63

e) Applicant’s Statement

• Proposal seeks to make better use of urban land • Section closest to Kenton Road pulled back to reduce impact on streetscene • Statement assesses proposal against development plan policies whose requirements would be met

Continued/…..

70 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/05 - P/259/04/COU continued….. f) Consultations

London Borough of Brent: No comment

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 38 11 16-MAR-04

Summary of Responses: Overshadowing, loss of privacy, inadequate parking, where will existing mobile phone installations go, detriment to radio and television reception; loss of light, loss of view, parking congestion, excessive height, noise and disturbance from parking, overdevelopment.

APPRAISAL

1) Employment Policy

The proposal complies with the principle of adopted policy EM3 and replacement policy EM4 by virtue of the site’s location within a District Centre. The detailed criteria set out in policy EM3 and replacement policy EM23 are discussed in the following main issues.

2) Appearance of the Area

The existing building is undistinguished in design terms with a flat roof, a high lift tower and no features of interest. The illustrative elevations show that a mansard roof would provide a better finish to the building at roof level. In terms of height, the existing building more or less matches the ridge level of the adjacent commercial parade. Although the proposal would be 1 storey higher overall than the adjacent building, this is considered to be acceptable in principle in this town centre location where higher buildings are appropriate in accordance with Policy E47. . The 6.5 metre front set-back would reduce the impact of the proposal on the streetscene, and overall an acceptable impact on the appearance of the area would result.

3) Neighbouring Amenity

The proposed rear wall would be some 27m from the rear boundaries of houses in Hillbury Avenue and almost 60m from the rear walls of those houses. These distances compare acceptably with the previous relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance requirements of 30m and 45m respectively. Given this, and the presence also of some fir trees along the rear boundaries, it is considered that a satisfactory relationship with Hillbury Avenue properties would result. There are no residential premises above the commercial properties which are in front of the rear element of the proposal. Continued/…..

71 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/05 - P/259/04/COU continued…..

Although there are 1st and 2nd floor flats above No. 200 Kenton Road to the west of the proposal, it is not considered that the existing relationship would be exacerbated in terms of light or outlook. A small part of the proposal would be within 6m of the far end of the rear garden of No. 1 Willowcourt Avenue. In the light of the existing situation whereby overlooking exists and also the proposed siting behind a less sensitive part of the rear garden it is considered that an acceptable relationship would be achieved. However, windows in this part of the building could be deleted at the detailed design and appearance stage if considered desirable.

4) Traffic and Parking

The existing provision of 34 spaces for the office component of the building is well in excess of the Revised UDP parking standard which requires only 13 spaces. Given this, the town centre location and the existence of public transport including rail services it is considered that the proposal can be accepted in traffic and parking terms.

5) Consultation Responses

• Where will existing mobile phone installation go – this is a matter for the applicant • Detriment to radio and television reception, loss of view – not material planning considerations • Other issues discussed in report

72 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/06 CHERRY TREE WAY, STANMORE, MIDDX P/178/04/CFU/TEM Ward: STANMORE PARK

DETACHED 2 STOREY BLOCK WITH ACCOMMODATION IN ROOFSPACE TO PROVIDE 7 FLATS WITH PARKING (REVISED)

MARK JACKSON for LAING HOMES LTD

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: L04.502.101 Rev A, 103 Rev A, 105 Rev B.

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

Continued/…..

73 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/06 - P/178/04/CFU continued…..

10 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the car parking, turning and loading area(s) shown on the approved plan number(s) L04.502.101 Rev A have been constructed and surfaced with impervious materials, and drained in accordance with details submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The car parking spaces shall be permanently marked out and used for no other purpose, at any time, without the written permission of the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory provision of parking areas, to safeguard the appearance of the locality and in the interests of highway safety. 11 Refuse Arrangements - Buildings 12 Water Storage Works

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 3 Standard Informative 35 – CDM Regulations 1994 4 Standard Informative 36 – Measurements from Submitted Plans 5 Standard Informative 43 – Building adjacent to Public Sewer 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E38 Conservation Areas - Character E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development T13 Car Parking Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy D16 Conservation Areas D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas T13 Parking Standards

Continued/…..

74 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/06 - P/178/04/CFU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Character and Appearance of Area and Conservation Area (E6, E38, E45) (SD1, D4, D16, D17) 2) Neighbouring Amenity (E45) (D4, D5) 3) Parking (T13) (T13) 4) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

TPO Conservation Area: Old Church Lane Car Parking Standard: 11 (10) Justified: 11 (10) Provided: 10 Site Area: 1,335m2 Habitable Rooms: 21 No. of Residential Units: 7 Density: 52 dph 157 hrph Council Interest: None b) Site Description

• West side of Old Church Lane, fronting onto southern arm of Cherry Tree Way • Formerly occupied by terraced houses, now part of development scheme currently under construction • 3 detached houses facing Old Church Lane to north • Detached houses currently under construction on western and southern sides of the site • Trees along Old Church Lane boundary c) Proposal Details

• Revised version of block of 7 flats approved in January 2003 • Revisions involve: • Resiting of building about 500mm closer to Old Church Lane boundary • Overall increase in height of building by some 400mm Continued/…..

75 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/06 - P/178/04/CFU continued…..

• Provision of 1 additional dormer window in south elevation, and rearrangement of dormer windows in west elevation • Alterations to position and provision of windows and balconies • Increased height of lift tower by some 2.5m d) Relevant History

EAST/1019/02/FUL Redevelopment to Provide 7 x 2-storey Detached GRANTED Houses and Detached 2-Storey Block with 17-JAN-03 Accommodation in Roofspace to Provide 7 Flats with Access and Integral, Forecourt and Covered Parking Areas

e) Applicant’s Statement

• Throughout detailing construction packages and co-ordinating with current building code architect discovered that several areas had to change • Lift being provided to comply with Part M and DDA, due to Health and Safety lift manufacturer requires lift overrun void to lift shaft after last floor, therefore lift shaft extends through roof • Majority of alterations within roof space to achieve adequate living space complying with required daylight and natural ventilation requirements • Part E of Building Regulations requires greater sound insulation in all floor slabs of the building resulting in ridge height increasing by 400mm • Building moved closer to Old Church Lane to permit provision of underground water storage system to meet Thames Water requirements • Resiting would not affect adjacent tree f) Consultations

Environment Agency: No comment Thames Water Utilities Ltd: Informative CAAC: Preferred previously agreed scheme. Revised proposals look less like individual houses and more like blocks of flats, concern at Juliet balconies as these make the proposals look more like flats.

Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 25-MAR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 35 0 11-MAR-04

Continued/…..

76 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/06 - P/178/04/CFU continued…..

APPRAISAL

1) Character and Appearance of Area and Conservation Area

The nature of the proposed revisions is such that they cannot be regarded as minor amendments to the approved scheme. However, they result in the development overall retaining the character and concept of the approved proposals. In detailed terms, the slightly closer siting to Old Church Lane can be accepted given that separation distances of between 5 and 11 metres from the front boundary would be retained. Existing frontage trees would not be prejudiced by the revised positions of the building. The 400mm increased in height of building would be minimal in the context of the scheme which retains the approved footprint and roof profile.

The proposed alterations to fenestration including the position of Juliet balconies would not harm the appearance of the building. While the higher lift tower would project above the ridge level by about 700mm, its location in the back corner of the building would mean that it would be obscured by other elements of the building and would thereby have no impact on the streetscene. Overall it is considered that an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and Conservation Area would be provided.

2) Neighbouring Amenity

New kitchen windows are shown at ground and first floor levels in the western module about 14m from the boundary with adjacent land to the north, providing an acceptable separation distance. New windows to light the lift lobby are proposed on the same floors about 10m from the northern boundary. Again this is considered acceptable given the location in between of a large ash tree, and the nature of the windows combined with the separation distance. In addition, an application to redevelop the northern land occupied by the 3 houses has now been received, and would not be prejudiced by the proposed windows.

3) Parking

The proposal meets the requirement of the replacement UDP.

4) Consultation Responses

None.

77 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/07 BRAKELOND, 65 SOUTH HILL AVE, HARROW P/326/04/CFU/RJS Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION WITH BASEMENT AND LIGHT WELL, SIDE AND REAR DORMERS AND ALTERATIONS TO FRONT ELEVATION

DAVID R YEAMAN & ASSOCIATES for MR & MRS M DUNLOP

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale; Project No.462 Drawing No.001; Project No. 462 Drawing No. 0011; Project No. 462 Drawing No. 0013

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 - Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 36 - Measurements from Submitted Plans 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E1 Integrity of Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Areas of Special Character E4 Protection of Structural Features E5 Protection of Character of Conservation Areas E6 High Standard of Design E8 Areas of Special Character E38 Conservation Areas – Character E39 Conservation Areas – Priority over other Policies E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SEP5 Structural Features SEP6 Areas of Special Character, Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land SD1 Quality of Design SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens

continued/ 78 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/07 - P/326/04/CFU continued.....

EP31 Areas of Special Character D4 Standard of Design and Layout D16 Conservation Areas D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas H11 Improvement of the Existing Housing Stock

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1. Conservation Area Character and Appearance (E1, E4, E5, E6, E8, E38, E39), (SEP5, SEP6, SD1, SD2, EP31, D16, D17) 2. Residential Amenity (E45), (D4, H11) 3. Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary Conservation Area: South Hill Avenue Council Interest: None b) Site Description • Detached bungalow with steep roof and first floor accommodation provided in the roof space; • Large box dormer window to rear; • Flat roof garage to side; • Located on southern side of South Hill Avenue, flanked by ‘Oakmead’ (Orley Farm School) to the east, and a detached dwelling to the west. c) Proposal Details • Extension to front and rear; • Front roof lights, side dormer windows and roof lights, rear dormer windows; • Roof arrangement changed from a ridged roof to a crown roof.

An almost identical development to that which is currently proposed was approved in November, 2003. The current proposal differs slightly from the approved scheme with respect of the following:

• It is proposed to extend the basement out under the rear ground level terrace to include a lightwell (6.5 m x 4.5 m) within the rear garden; • The lightwell would incorporate stair access to the rear garden and safety hand railing to a minimum height of 1.1 metres;

continued/

79 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/07 - P/326/04/CFU continued.....

d) Relevant History

LBH/663 rear extension garage domestic store GRANTED 28-OCT-1965

LBH/663/1 alterations provide additional bedrooms in GRANTED roofspace 10-JAN-1967

LBH/29092 two storey rear extension over cellar GRANTED 21-JAN-1986

WEST/862/02/FUL Replacement & extended hardsurfacing in front REFUSED garden with new cross over 28-NOV-2002

P/1137/03/CFU Two storey rear extension, side and rear dormers GRANTED and alterations to front elevation 06-NOV-2003

e) Consultations

CAAC: “Better drawings are required showing detail of handrails and walls. But appears acceptable”.

Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 18-MAR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 2 0 11-MAR-04

APPRAISAL

1) Character and appearance

Despite the proposed additions being quite large, they nevertheless would be in character with the existing building and would harmonise with it. The rooflights to be installed in the front roofslope would be of a conservation style.

Although the proposed side dormers would be visible from certain vantage points from the roadway, they would be small and modest in scale with respect of the roof hips of the proposed side elevation.

continued/

80 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/07 - P/326/04/CFU continued.....

The proposed projection of the pediment front gable would not have a significant impact on the conservation area as architectural features are to be retained and the projection is minimal. The new windows flanking the central ached window have been designed to be inserted into existing architectural features so would not represent a major change to the appearance.

Although the rear of the building would be heavily extended, the form of the rear elevation would remain the same, facing onto a large expanse or back garden. The proposed rear dormers would be similar to those in the existing roof pitch. The proposed rear central gable projection would be acceptable as it is of a similar style to that at the front.

Whilst the roof arrangement of the building would be altered to a crown roof, the important features of the roof would be retained: namely the three chimneys and the feature ‘kinks’ of the ridgeline. This would ensure that the visual interest of the front and rear elevations would be retained.

The extended basement and lightwell do not raise any specific concerns as these elements of work are located to the rear of the building and would not be visible from the frontage of the site.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal would protect the appearance and character of this part of the conservation area.

2) Residential amenity

The proposed side-dormer windows would overlook the front part of the neighbouring properties. It is considered that this would not result in a degree of overlooking and associated loss of privacy which would justify an objection to the scheme.

The proposed rear dormer windows would result in increased, but no new overlooking of the rear gardens of the adjoining properties. No overall loss of privacy would result.

Due to the distance between the properties and the only minor increase in depth of the application property, the resulting building would not block out light to the adjoining properties or appear overbearing to the residents thereof.

3) Consultation Responses

None

CONCLUSION For all the reasons considered above, and weighing up the development plan polices and proposals, and other material considerations, including any comments received in response to publicity and consultation, as set out above, this application is recommended for grant.

81 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/08 7 CANONS CLOSE, EDGWARE P/334/04/CFU/RJS Ward: CANONS

WORKS TO FACILITATE USE OF INTEGRAL GARAGE AS HABITABLE FLOORSPACE

B TAILOR (ZNX) for DR & MRS IZON

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: AO/ 2766

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E5 Protection of Character of Conservation Areas E6 High Standard of Design E38 Conservation Areas - Character E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development T13 Car Parking Standards H11 Improvement of the Existing Housing Stock Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens D4 Standard of Design and Layout D16 Conservation Areas D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas T13 Parking Standards H11 Maintenance and Improvement to Existing Housing Stock

Continued/…..

82 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/08 - P/334/04/CFU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Conservation Area Character and Appearance (E5, E6, E38), (SD1, SD2, D16, D17) 2) Residential Amenity (E45, H11), (D4, H11) 3) Parking (T13), (T13) 4) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Conservation Area: Canons Park Estate Council Interest: None b) Site Description

• The subject site is located on the south eastern side of Canons Close, east of the junction with Canons Drive. Canons Drive encompasses a small cul-de-sac, accommodating 10 residential properties; • The building on the subject site is a two storey detached dwellings. An integral single garage is located to the north west corner of the building. • The sealed forecourt of the property allows a vehicle to be parked on site; c) Proposal Details

• Remove the garage door within the front elevation; • Replace the garage door with new brickwork and a bay window to match the existing; • Convert the existing integral garage into a habitable room; d) Relevant Planning History

None. e) Consultations

CAAC: Concern at loss of garage for habitable room as it would result in the dispersal of cars either onto hardsurfacing at the front of the house or onto the street, both of which could have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area. The house already has huge extensions. Continued/…..

83 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/08 - P/334/04/CFU continued…..

Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 11-MAR-04

Notification Sent Replies Expiry 6 0 18-MAR-04

APPRAISAL

1) Conservation Area Character and Appearance

The proposed infilling of the existing garage is considered to constitute a minor cosmetic modification to the existing building. Many of the other houses in the small close have already undertaken similar conversion. Accordingly it is considered that the works would have no detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area.

2) Residential Amenity

As the exiting garage door in the front elevation of the building is being infilled with brickwork and bay window there is no concern that the proposed dwelling additions would pose a detrimental impact for the adjoining neighbour.

3) Parking

Although the proposal would amount to the loss of an on site garaged vehicle space, it is highlighted that the existing driveway provides for an on parking space. Furthermore as the existing garage is undersized by current standards it has not been used for the housing of a vehicle. Accordingly there is no objection to the scheme on grounds of insufficient parking provision or highway safety.

4) Consultation Responses

None.

84 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/09 2A THE WOODLANDS, LONDON RD, HARROW P/174/04/CRE/RJS Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

RENEWAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION WEST/4/99/FUL FOR CONVERSION OF OUT- BUILDINGS TO PROVIDE EXTENSION TO FLAT

LOUISE WORSWICK

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: dwg no 02/P1a; dwg no 02/P2a; dwg no 02/P3a; dwg no 02/P4a; dwg no 02/P8 dwg no 02/P9

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to be Approved 3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no window(s)/door(s) shall be installed in the flank wall(s) of the development hereby permitted without the prior permission in writing of the local planning authority. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. 4 Completed Development - Use

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E1 Integrity of Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Areas of Special Character E4 Protection of Structural Features E5 Protection of Character of Conservation Areas E6 High Standard of Design E8 Areas of Special Character E35 Locally Listed Buildings - Retention and Maintenance E38 Conservation Areas - Character E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development H11 Improvement of the Existing Housing Stock Continued/……

85 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/09 - P/174/04/CRE continued…..

Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SEP5 Structural Features SEP6 Areas of Special Character, Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land SD1 Quality of Design SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens EP31 Areas of Special Character D4 Standard of Design and Layout D13 Locally Listed Buildings - Retention and Maintenance D16 Conservation Areas D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas H11 Maintenance and Improvement to Existing Housing Stock

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Conservation Area & Area of Special Character (E1, E4, E5, E6, E8, E35, E38), (SEP5, SEP6, SD1, SD2, EP31, D13, D16, D17) 2) Residential Amenity (E45, H11), (D4, H11) 3) Consultation Response

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character TPO Locally Listed Building Conservation Area: Sudbury Hill Council Interest: None b) Site Description

• The subject site is a sub basement flat in a short cul-de-sac consisting of two pairs of semi detached properties located off the eastern side of London Road; • A single storey outbuilding extends across the whole width of the rear boundary of both the subject site and adjoining neighbour. The outbuildings are set at a distance of 2.4 from the main rear wall. Both properties effectively have a small courtyard immediately to the rear beyond which (and at a higher level due to retaining walls), is the main shared gardens; Continued/…..

86 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/09 - P/174/04/CRE continued…..

• The courtyards of the subject site and the adjoining neighbour are separated by a solid wall to a height of 3.0 metres; • The site is situated within the Sudbury Hill Estate Conservation Area, with the building being Locally Listed; c) Proposal Details

• Permission is sought to renew prior planning permission that was granted for the erection of a short corridor extension to link the ground floor flat with the outbuildings and to covert the latter to create an additional bedroom; • The proposed corridor extension would be small in scale extending a total of 2.4 metres in depth along the existing boundary wall that separates the courtyard of the subject site from the neighbouring courtyard; • The corridor would link the ground floor flat with the outbuilding; • New windows and a door inserted into the existing openings; • The corrugated roof would be replaced by a grey slate roof. d) Relevant Planning History

LBH/16217 construction of new entrance door at side and GRANTED conversion of basement and ground floor into 11-JAN-1980 2 self-contained flats

LBH/36963 conversion of existing outbuilding as extension GRANTED to flats 05-JAN-1989

WEST/4/99/FUL conversion of out-buildings to provide GRANTED extension to flats 19-MAR-1999 e) Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 01-APR-04

Notification Sent Replies Expiry 7 0 18-MAR-04

APPRAISAL

1) Conservation Area Character and Appearance

In terms of the impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area, generally it is considered that, subject to conditions requiring the submission and approval of materials, it would serve to enhance the character and appearance of both the property itself and this part of the Conservation Area. In particular the use of a more sympathetic material on the roof would be welcomed. The proposal would essentially enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and is therefore considered acceptable. Continued/…..

87 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/09 - P/174/04/CRE continued…..

2) Residential Amenity

In terms of the impact of the proposal on the adjoining property, due to the courtyard separating wall, the effects would be negligible as it would not appear overbearing, nor result in loss of light. Apart from the construction of the link, the proposal encompasses the reuse of the existing outbuilding. This would ensure no detrimental impact would be caused to any person nor detract from the amenities of neighbouring properties.

3) Consultation Responses

None.

88 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/10 41 HIGH ST, HARROW ON THE HILL P/561/04/CFU/GM Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

CHANGE OF USE: CLASS B1 (OFFICE) MIXED USE A1 (RETAIL) & A3 (RESTAURANT) ON BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOOR

KENNETH W REED & ASSOCIATES for MR ROBERT FULKER

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 1350/01A; 02B; 03C; 14; 15A; 16; 17; 18

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Fume Extraction - External Appearance - Use 3 Noise from Music and Amplified Sound 4 Noise and Odour/Fume from Plant and Machinery 5 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for:- (a) The storage and disposal of refuse/waste (b) and vehicular access thereto has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The use hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To ensure adequate standards of hygiene and refuse/waste collection without prejudice to the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties. 6 Disabled Access - Use 7 Listed Building – Details Detailed drawings, specifications, or samples of materials as appropriate in respect of the following shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority before the relevant part of the work is begun: a) the rooflights b) the rear fire door and screen c) the front timber doors The works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. 8 The A3 use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times:- 10.30 hours to 23.00 hours, Monday to Saturday inclusive, and 10.30 hours to 22.30 hours on Sundays, without the prior written permission of the local planning authority. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. Continued/…

89 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/10 – P561/04/CFU continued/…

9 The A3 use shall only operate as part of a mixed use including a retail area as shown on Plan. No.1350/15A. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. 10 The premises shall be used for the purpose specified on the application and for no other purpose, including any other purpose in Class A3. 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 that order with or without modification). REASON: (a) To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and the character of the locality. (c) In the interests of highway safety. 11 Shop Window Display

INFORMATIVES 1 INFORMATIVE: The applicant's attention is drawn to the Council's policy to encourage developers to provide facilities for the separate storage and collection of different colour bottles for the purpose of recycling. The applicant should also note that such collections are carried out free of charge by the Council. Storage arrangements should be agreed with the Council's Cleansing and Transport Services Manager. 2 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. 3 INFORMATIVE: Harrow Council has published a leaflet "ACCESS FOR ALL", containing design guidelines for the provision of safe and convenient access for all disabled groups. A copy is attached. 4 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. A copy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister booklet "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: explanatory booklet" is available free of charge from: ODPM Free Literature, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237 Textphone: 0870 1207 405 E-mail:[email protected] Website: http://www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/bregs/walls.htm

Continued/…

90 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/10 – P561/04/CFU continued/…

5 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. 6 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is requested to liaise with the Council's Highways Enforcement Section with regard to the provision of a litterbin, or appropriate alternative, outside the premises. The applicant is asked to ensure that this is emptied at regular intervals and that the Public Highway outside the premises is kept litter-free. 7 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that Listed Building Consent is required for both internal and external works indicated on the approved plans and such permission should be secured before works commence. 8 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is advised that advertisement consent is required for the signage indicated on the approved plans and such permission should be secured before works commence. 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E38 Conservation Areas - Character E39 Conservation Areas - Priority over other Policies E46 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Non-Residential Development E51 Noise Nuisance EM1 Loss of Employment EM New Employment Policy T13 Car Parking Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design EP25 Noise D4 Standard of Design and Layout D12 Statutorily Listed Buildings D16 Conservation Areas D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas D18 Conservation Area Priority D27 Shopfront and Advertisements T13 Parking Standards EM16 Business, Industrial and Warehousing Use - Outside Designated Areas EM26 Food, Drink and Late Night Uses

Continued/…

91 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/10 – P561/04/CFU continued/…

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1. Retail Vitality/Character of the Conservation Area (E38, E39, EM1, EM) (D12, D17, D18, D27, EM16, EM26) 2. Neighbouring Amenity (E6, E46, E51) (SD1, EP25, D4) 3. Car Parking (T13) (T13) 4. Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character Listed Building: Grade II Conservation Area: Harrow Village Car Parking Standard: 9 (3) Justified: 0 (2) Provided: 0 CCA 85m2 indicative A3 44m2 shop Council Interest: None b) Site Description • three storey terraced office building with basement, currently vacant • situated on the eastern side of High Street, almost opposite the triangular green • within the Harrow on the Hill Village Conservation Area and the core shopping area defined for the Hill • building is Grade II listed • nos.37/39 to the immediate north comprise a restaurant (A3) with residential use above, whilst No.43 to the south comprises a car showroom with residential use above c) Proposal Details • change of use of the ground floor and basement from offices (Class B1) to a mixed use, comprising a delicatessen (Class A1) at the front and a restaurant (A3) to the rear and in the basement • alterations to the shopfront to include clear glass to the existing gothic arch windows, new timber doors enclosing recessed entrance, replacement separate front door • alteration to the rear comprising replacement rooflights, fire exit door, timber screen • kitchen extract duct to rear Continued/…

92 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/10 – P561/04/CFU continued/… d) Relevant History

HAR/4653 Use premises as professional offices GRANTED 20-MAR-51

LBH/10633/1 Change of use from light industrial to estate GRANTED agent offices/professional offices for architect, 01-DEC-77 surveyor, accountant.

LBH/21416 Change of use of first and second floors and part GRANTED of ground floor to offices 30-JUN-82

LBH/31553 Change of use of part of ground floor from office GRANTED to estate agents 08-JAN-87

WEST/739/95/FUL Change of use of ground floor : Estate agent to GRANTED general office (Class A2 to B1) 14-FEB-96

e) Applicant’s Statement • site within shopping core area of Harrow on the Hill Village where Council considers change of use from offices to A3 use should be encouraged, and degree of flexibility in relation to other policies to promote this change possible. • externally building will be refurbished where necessary but no change to the basic design • new doors will generally be open during opening hours with glazed screen and door to lobby • glass to windows will be made clear to effect better views into the ground floor space • signs will be installed in a sympathetic manner on the outside of the building and will be subject of a separate advertisement consent • internally there will be a delicatessen on the front section of the ground floor and the rear section will be devoted to the restaurant • rear area will have access from the rear service road and will act as a storage and delivery area, together with an area for the storage of waste bins. • disabled persons toilet will be installed on the ground floor, new staff toilets/kitchens/stores and other staff facilities in basement • no major changes envisaged to internal layout or structure however a listed building consent will be sought if principal of change of use allowed. • rear extract duct will be required and would be located in the least intrusive and inconspicuous manner possible Continued/…

93 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/10 – P561/04/CFU continued/…

• no car parking to rear of site however on street parking restrictions are relaxed when the restaurant would be in main use • proposal will bring vitality to the High Street, both during the day and in the evening, as well as making the listed building more accessible to the public f) Consultations CAAC: Parking could be a problem but the deli/retail elements should add to the vitality of the conservation area.

Advertisement: Charact of Cons Area Expiry 08-APR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 35 1 30-MAR-04

Response: Area in need of somewhere to buy local fresh food at weekends and a further quality restaurant is needed in the area.

APPRAISAL

1. Retail Vitality/Character of the Conservation Area The change of use of the ground floor and basement of the building from offices to a mixed use comprising a shop and restaurant is to be welcomed in retail policy terms. It would accord with the aims of defining a shopping core area for Harrow on the Hill Village. The viability of the upper floor office use would not be compromised as these have in the past been separately let from the ground floor and basement.

With regard to the Character of the Conservation Area, this would be enhanced by the increased activity that the mixed use would entail. The appearance of the listed building would also be enhanced through the use of the clear glazing for the front windows.

2. Neighbouring Amenity The property to the north is an established restaurant with residential use above whilst that to the south is a car showroom again with residential use above. Other nearby restaurants are at Nos.51 and 86 with permission having also been granted for No.49 in December 2003. The principle of allowing A3 uses in the shopping core has already been established and subject to conditions relating to noise, odours and hours of use it is considered that there would be no detrimental effect on neighbours amenity. A restriction within the use class would be appropriate given the scale of the facility and the nature of the layout indicated whereby there would be shared access arrangements for the proposal and upper floor uses.

Continued/…

94 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/10 – P561/04/CFU continued/…

3. Car Parking Given the desire to attract more activity to the shopping core area, and the likelihood that such activity would be at its greatest when on-street parking restrictions in the area are relaxed, it is not considered that a parking reason for refusal could be reasonably justified.

4. Consultation Responses

There are addressed in the report.

95 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/11 49 HIGH ST, HARROW ON THE HILL P/138/04/CLB/AB Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: INTERNAL ALTERATIONS

MR J R ANDREWS for MR T J HARRIS

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 03/49/01, 49/01A and site plan

GRANT listed building consent in accordance with the works described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions:-

1 Time Limit - Listed Bldg./Cons. Area Consent 2 Listed Building - Details

INFORMATIVE SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANT OF LISTED BUILDING CONSENT OR CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT: The decision to grant Listed Building or Conservation Area Consent has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E34 Statutorily Listed Building Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: D12 Statutorily Listed Buildings

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Character of listed building (E34) (D12) 2) Consultation Responses

Continued/…..

96 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/11 - P/138/04/CLB continued…..

INFORMATION

The applicant is related to a Council Member. a) Summary

Area of Special Character Listed Building: Grade II Conservation Area: Harrow on the Hill Village Council Interest: None b) Listed Building Description

• No 49 forms part of a terrace of three buildings, each of three storeys. • No 49 was built for Augustus Jacob, the surveyor to the Harrow Board of Health, a forerunner to Harrow Council, in 1868. • The exterior broadly conforms with the rest of the row being in the Victorian gothic style with tiled roofs and bracketed eaves, red brick and blue brick diapering. The interior of No 49 had a board room for Council meetings and the surveyor’s office, with his private accommodation above. c) Proposal Details

• Installation of partition to create a cupboard • Installation of shower cubicle • Creation of opening in existing partition • Installation of kitchen • Installation of new doors to subdivide living room and bedroom d) Relevant History

WEST/878/00/LBC Internal alterations and rear extension Granted 10-JUL-01

e) Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 10 0 24-FEB-04

Continued/…..

97 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/11 - P/138/04/CLB continued…..

APPRAISAL

1) Character of Listed Building The works to install a shower and kitchen would not have an impact on the special architectural or historic character of the property. The proposed new doorway in the partition wall is considered acceptable as it is likely that this is not a historic partition, and only a small opening is proposed.

2) Consultation responses None CONCLUSION For all the reasons considered above, and weighing up the development plan policies and proposals, and other material considerations, including any comments received in response to publicity and consultation, as set out above, this application is recommended for grant.

98 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/12 VALLEYFIELD, MOUNT PARK ROAD, HARROW P/233/04/CFU/TEM Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

ALTERATIONS TO GARAGE AND SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOUSE WITH ACCOMMODATION IN ROOF WITH FORECOURT PARKING, CARRIAGEWAY DRIVE, EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING HOUSE

JOHN BROWNING ASSOCIATES for JOHN BROWNING

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 324/10, 11, 12 Rev.A

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s):

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted below have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority: (a) the extension/building(s) The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the locality. 3 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the extended driveway an parking area shown on the approved plan number(s) 324/10 have been constructed and surfaced with impervious materials, and drained in accordance with details submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The car parking spaces shall be permanently marked out and used for no other purpose, at any time, without the written permission of the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory provision of parking areas, to safeguard the appearance of the locality and in the interests of highway safety. 4 PD Restriction - Classes A to E 5 No development shall take place until a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed: b: before the building(s) is/are occupied The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and the character of the locality.

continued/

99 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/12 - P/233/04/CFU continued.....

6 Landscaping to be Approved 7 Landscaping to be Implemented 8 Landscape Management Plan INFORMATIVES: 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 3 Standard Informative 36 – Measurements from Submitted Plans 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E8 Areas of Special Character E35 Locally Listed Buildings – Retention and Maintenance E38 Conservation Areas - Character E45 Quality of Development – Design and Layout of Residential Development T13 Car Parking Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design EP31 Areas of Special Character D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development – Amenity Space and Privacy D13 Locally Listed Buildings – Retention and Maintenance D15 The Use of Statutorily and Locally Listed Buildings D16 Conservation Areas D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas T13 Parking Standards

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1) Appearance and Character of Conservation Area and Area of Special Character (E6, E8, E38, E45) (SD1, D4, D16, D17, EP31) 2) Impact on Locally Listed Building (E35) (D13, D15) 3) Residential Amenity (E45) (D4, D5) 4) Demolition in Conservation Area (E38, D16, D17) 5) Traffic and Parking (T13), (T13) 6) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary Area of Special Character: Locally Listed Building TPO Conservation Area: Mount Park Estate continued/

100 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/12 - P/233/04/CFU continued.....

Car Parking Standard: 4 (4) Justified: 4 (4) Provided: 6 Site Area: 6.4ha No. of Residential Units: 2 Habitable Rooms: 24 Council Interest: None b) Site Description • west side of Mount Park Road near its northern end within Mount Park Estate Conservation Area and Harrow on the Hill Area of Special Character • occupied by substantial 2-storey detached dwellinghouse, with single storey side and rear extensions, and detached garage/shed at side, locally listed, brick and tile-hung elevations, tiled roof • rooms in roof lit by front, rear and side dormer windows • substantial tree masses at front, in rear garden and in side garden to north of house, covered by TPO • large rear garden, approximately 4,200m2 • detached house, Southacre, to south • woodland opposite site • rear garden boundaries of houses in Brooke Avenue at back of site • 3 terraced houses, Oakley Grange, plus area of woodland to north of site • footpath link across rear garden from Southacre to Brooke Avenue c) Proposal Details • demolition of 2 storey side extension, single storey side and rear extensions, and detached garage/shed • single storey extension to north-west elevation of house and alterations to existing garage to provide new house containing kitchen, living, dining and bedroom on ground floor and 4 bedrooms on first floor within roofspace lit by dormer windows • brick and tile hung elevations proposed with tiled roof to match existing • existing drive extended to form carriage-drive and widened in front of building to provide informal parking for at least 6 vehicles • rear garden sub-divided into 2 large areas separated by new yew hedges and 1m fence • new 1m high fence proposed alongside 1.4m wide footpath link across rear garden d) Relevant History P/369/03/CFU Conversion to provide 3 houses with GRANTED forecourt parking, carriage drive, alterations 16-OCT-03 to existing house, single storey side extension, rooms in roof P/368/03/CCA Conservation Area Consent: Demolition of GRANTED outbuilding 16-OCT-03

continued/

101 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/12 - P/233/04/CFU continued.....

e) Applicant’s Statement • application similar to existing permission but with houses 1 and 2 combined to form single house • house 3 of previous permission not changed and external demolitions also unchanged f) Consultations CAAC: No objections as very similar to previously approved application EA: No comments TWU: No objections

Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 18-MAR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 21 1 15/03/2004 Summary of Responses: Reduction to 2 houses an improvement, overlooking, loss of privacy.

APPRAISAL

1) Appearance and Character of Conservation Area and Area of Special Character Planning permission P/369/03/CFU accepts the provision of works to the existing garage to provide a new dwelling. These works are replicated in this application, and the proposed demolition and appearance of the existing house are identical to the approved scheme.

In addition, the proposed alterations to the driveway and rear garden are as previously approved. In these circumstances it is concluded that the proposals would preserve the character and appearance of this part of the Mount Park Estate Conservation Area and the Area of Special Character.

2) Impact on Locally Listed Building This scheme proposes identical external works to the recent permission which was considered to provide a satisfactory impact on the setting and character of this locally listed building. Internal works to convert the house into 2 dwellings are not proposed as part of this scheme.

3) Residential Amenity The proposed demolition of the 2 storey side extension would benefit Southacre by relocating clear-glazed ground and first floor flank windows a further 5.7m from the boundary. continued/

102 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/12 - P/233/04/CFU continued.....

The proposed dormer windows in the north-western roofslope of the proposed new house would be sited some 15m from Brockley Grange, and this together with the siting of intervening trees would enable the provision of a satisfactory relationship in terms of outlook and privacy, as previously approved.

4) Demolition in Conservation Area The recently granted conservation area consent can be satisfactorily applied to this scheme.

5) Traffic and Parking The proposed access and parking arrangements are as previously approved.

6) Consultation Responses Discussed in report.

103 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/13 DAIRY COTTAGE & FARM COTTAGE, 13 & 15 P/324/04/CFU/TEM BROOKSHILL DRIVE, HARROW Ward: HARROW WEALD

NEW DOOR, STEPS AND TIMBER DECK ON WEST ELEVATION, ALTERATIONS TO WINDOWS AND ROOF

KENNETH W REED & ASSOCIATES for COPSE FARM LTD

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 1347/05 Rev B, 55

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted below have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority: (a) the approved door, steps, windows and roof alterations The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the locality. INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E4 Protection of Structural Features E6 High Standard of Design E8 Areas of Special Character E11 Green Belt - Extensions to Buildings (as amended) E35 Locally Listed Buildings - Retention and Maintenance E38 Conservation Areas - Character E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design SEP5 Structural Features D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy D13 Locally Listed Buildings - Retention and Maintenance Continued/…..

104 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/13 - P/324/04/CFU continued…..

EP31 Areas of Special Character EP34 Extension to Buildings in the Green Belt D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Green Belt Impact (E4, E11 as amended) (SEP5, EP34) 2) Character of Conservation Area and Area of Special Character (E4, E6, E8, E38) (SEP5, SD1, EP31, D17) 3) Locally Listed Building Impact (E35) (D13) 4) Neighbouring Amenity (E6, E45) (SD1, D4, D5) 5) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character Locally Listed Building TPO Conservation Area: Brookshill Green Belt Council Interest: None b) Site Description

• On southern side of Brookshill Drive within Brookshill Drive Conservation Area • Occupied by pair of semi-detached dwellings, both locally listed • Both houses 2-storeys in height, Farm Cottage with single-storey elements • Public footpath and lawn to west of the properties • Brookshill Drive to the north • Stable yard and attached stables to east and south respectively c) Proposal Details

• Provision of new door in western elevation of single-storey element of Farm Cottage, accessed via new external steps with timber deck in front of door to provide a secondary entrance • Roof alteration to provide small gable over new door • Alterations to 2 existing windows in western elevation of Farm Cottage • Internal works shown involving demolition of walls in single-storey element which do not require planning permission Continued/…..

105 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/13 - P/324/04/CFU continued….. d) Relevant History

None.

e) Consultations

CAAC: No objections

Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 01-APR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 11 2 18-MAR-04

Summary of Responses: Improvement.

APPRAISAL

1) Green Belt Impact

The proposed new steps and deck in front of the entrance door would be 2m deep x 3.2m wide x 1.8m high, including balustrading. This modest structure, together with the new roof gable, would have an insignificant impact upon the character and openness of the Green Belt.

2) Character of Conservation Area and Area of Special Character

The proposed works which would have an acceptable appearance, would preserve the character of the Brookshill Drive Conservation Area, and would not prejudice the structural features which make up the Area of Special Character.

3) Locally Listed Building Impact

Subject to the use of acceptable materials, the character and setting of these locally listed buildings would be preserved.

4) Neighbouring Amenity

The amenities of Dairy Cottage would not be prejudiced by the proposals.

Continued/…..

106 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/13 - P/324/04/CFU continued…..

5) Consultation Responses

Awaited.

107 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/14 STANMORE GOLF CLUB HOUSE, 29 GORDON AVE, P/434/04/CFU/JH STANMORE Ward: STANMORE PARK

COVERED TEACHING/PRACTICE FACILITY

MR R UPTON for MR B NEVILLE

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 29/49A; 29/50; OS Plan

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission

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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E1 Integrity of Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Areas of Special Character E2 Protection of Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land E4 Protection of Structural Features E6 High Standard of Design E9 Green Belt -Acceptable Land Uses E10 Green Belt - Criteria for Development E11 Green Belt - Extensions to Building E23 Parks, Open Spaces and Playing Fields - Buildings and Structures E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SEP5 Structural Features SEP6 Areas of Special Character, Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land SD1 Quality of Design EP33 Development in the Green Belt EP34 Extension to Buildings in the Green Belt D4 Standard of Design and Layout

Continued/…..

108 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/14 - P/434/04/CFU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Recreation Policy (R2, R9), (SR1, SR2, R4) 2) Metropolitan Open Land (E4, E18, E19, E23), (SEP5, SEP6, EP43, EP44) 3) Residential Amenity (E6, E45, E46), (D4, SD1) 4) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Floorspace: 69m2 Council Interest: None b) Site Description • Site designated as Metropolitan Open Land and Site of Nature Conservation Interest; • Site located within the Stanmore Golf Club accessed from Gordon Avenue, Stanmore; • The practice area to which the application relates is situated away from the Clubhouse, course boundaries and surrounding residential properties; • The site is screened by mature trees and surrounded by wide areas of fairways and greens associated with the golf course. c) Proposal Details • Erect open fronted Tanalised timber shed with pitched roof for teaching/ practice purposes; • Dimensions include width 14.03m, depth 4.9m and height 2.74 – 4.4m respectively; • Two bays to be formed within shed. One bay would face the open course and the other would be enclosed by a netted driving area extending 10.0m from the front of the shed and 9.0m in width. d) Relevant Planning History

None e) Notification Sent Replies Expiry 1 Awaited 25-MAR-04

Continued/…..

109 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/14 - P/434/04/CFU continued…..

APPRAISAL

1) Recreation Policy Policies in the adopted and replacement HUDP’s support the improvement of recreational facilities as proposed in this application. The availability of the premises for public use (although limited) also complies with the thrust of recreational policies.

2) Metropolitan Open Land The proposal would give rise to a building ancillary to the use of the golf course with a footprint of some 69m2 excluding the netted area to the front of the building. The netted area would add a further 90m2 although the outlook would remain primarily open in accordance with plan policy. This would represent a modest increase in the context of the site area and the appropriate design of the development together with location of existing vegetation would screen the development from surrounding properties and preserve the open nature of the site.

3) Residential Amenity As the proposed practice shelter is modest in scale in terms of the overall site area, and well removed/screened from neighbouring properties, the proposal would have no impact on residential amenity.

4) Consultation Responses None.

110 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/15 TANGLEWOOD COTTAGE, 12 TANGLEWOOD CLOSE, P/68/04/CFU/RJS STANMORE Ward: STANMORE PARK

SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION

DAVID LANE ASSOCIATES for MR & MRS FINGER

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 331 7 G, 331 8 F, 331 10, 331 12, 331 13 B.

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 31 – No Future Extensions 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E1 Integrity of Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Areas of Special Character E2 Protection of Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land E4 Protection of Structural Features E6 High Standard of Design E10 Green Belt - Criteria for Development E11 Green Belt - Extensions to Buildings E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SEP5 Structural Features SEP6 Areas of Special Character, Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land SD1 Quality of Design EP33 Development in the Green Belt EP34 Extension to Buildings in the Green Belt D4 Standard of Design and Layout

Continued/…..

111 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/15 - P/68/04/CFU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Green Belt Land and Area of Special Character (E1, E2, E4, E6, E10, E11), (SEP5, SEP6, SD1, EP33, EP34) 2) Residential Amenity (E45), (D4) 3) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character Green Belt Council Interest: None b) Site Description

• The subject site is located to the southern end of Tanglewood Close which is a small cul-de-sac providing access to six properties; • A double storey detached dwelling is located on the property, along with a detached double garage; • the site lies within the Green Belt c) Proposal Details

• Construct a new porch around rear entrance door, located in the south-west facing elevation. The entrance porch would have a footprint of 1.2 x 2.4 metres and include a gable ended pitched roof to match the existing dwelling; • Construct a new utility room by infilling a small corner to the south west of the dwellinghouse. The utility room would have a footprint of 1.74 x 2.26 metres and include a pitched/ hipped roof to match the existing dwelling; d) Relevant Planning History

EAST/96/00/FUL replacement detached dwelling GRANTED 06-APR-2000

EAST/670/00/FUL replacement detached dwelling (revised) GRANTED 29-SEPT-2000 Continued/…..

112 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/15 - P/68/04/CFU continued….. e) Consultations

Notification Sent Replies Expiry 2 0 12-FEB-04

APPRAISAL

5) Green Belt Land and Area of Special Character

With respect of the extension of dwellinghouses, Green Belt polices aim to restrict the increase in size of dwellings within the Metropolitan Green Belt, in order to safeguard the openness of it.

The area is characterised by large dwellinghouses set in ample plots, with generally abundant and mature boundary vegetation and space around the buildings. The proposed additions incorporate a new entrance porch to the rear door of the building, and the infilling of and existing corner of the building to provide for a utility room. As both elements are single storey and have very limited footprints (2.88 m2 for the porch and 3.9 m2 for the utility room), the works would amount to a very small increase in building floor area and volume. As the elements proposed are within the general building envelope of the existing dwelling, and would not block any significant views, they are considered to constitute minor works that would not have a detrimental impact on the openness of the locality with respect of the Green Belt land classification. Accordingly it is deemed that the proposed additions would not be harmful to the Green Belt.

Original Replacement % over proposed % over Buildings Buildings original original Footprint (m2 ) 239 198 - 17.15 % 204.8 - 14.30 % Floor Area 195 271 + 38.97 % 277.8 + 42.46 % (m2 ) Volume (m3 ) 792 1056 + 33.33 % 1082.17 + 36.63 %

6) Neighbouring Amenity

Specifically the proposed works would be undertaken within the general building envelope of the existing dwelling. Furthermore the two proposed elements are located to the building’s south west facing elevation, which faces the adjoining RAF site. A solid 2.0 m brick wall is located along the common boundary. Accordingly it is considered that no material detriment would be caused to any adjoining property.

7) Consultation Responses

None. Continued/…..

113 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/15 - P/68/04/CFU continued…..

114 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/16 35-37 STATION RD, HARROW P/2869/03/CFU/TW Ward: MARLBOROUGH

CHANGE OF USE: CLASS A1 TO A2 ON GROUND FLOOR WITH 3 STOREY EXTENSION TO TERRACE WITH ROOMS IN ROOF TO PROVIDE 8 FLATS WITH PARKING AT REAR, A2 USE ON GROUND FLOOR (RESIDENT PERMIT RESTRICTED)

N M Architects for ARIHANT LTD

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: AR/01, AR/02, AR/03

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit – Full Permission 2 Materials to Match 3 Noise from Plant and Machinery 4 The use hereby permitted shall not commence until the car parking, turning and loading area(s) shown on the approved plan number(s) AR/01 have been constructed and surfaced with impervious materials, and drained in accordance with details submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The car parking spaces shall be permanently marked out and used for no other purpose, at any time, without the written permission of the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory provision of parking areas, to safeguard the appearance of the locality and in the interests of highway safety. 5 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for:- (b) The storage and disposal of refuse/waste (b) and vehicular access thereto has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied or used until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To ensure adequate standards of hygiene and refuse/waste collection without prejudice to the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties.

INFORMATIVES 1 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.

Continued/…

115 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/16 – P/2869/03/CFU continued…..

2 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. A copy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister booklet "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: explanatory booklet" is available free of charge from: ODPM Free Literature, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237 Textphone: 0870 1207 405 E-mail:[email protected] Website: http://www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/bregs/walls.htm 3 INFORMATIVE: The relevant traffic order will impose a restriction making residential occupiers of this building ineligible for residents parking permits in the surrounding controlled parking zone. 4 INFORMATIVE: The development hereby approved may be subject to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 which govern health and safety through all stages of a construction project. The Regulations require clients (ie those, including developers, who commission projects) to appoint a planning supervisor and principal contractor who are competent and adequately resourced to carry out their health and safety responsibilities. Clients have further obligations. Your designer will tell you about these and your planning supervisor can assist you in fulfilling them. Further information is available from the Health and Safety Executive Infoline on 0541 545500.

Continued/…

116 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/16 – P/2869/03/CFU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1. Residential Provision and Amenity (E6, E45, H1) (SD1, D4, D5) 2. Parking (T13) (T13) 3. Retail Policy (S16, S19) (EM21, EM22)

INFORMATION a) Summary

Car Parking Standard: 14 (12) Justified: 4 (4) Provided: 4 (4) No of residential Units: 8 Council Interest: None

Continued/…

117 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/16 – P/2869/03/CFU continued….. b) Site Description • a vacant (former car accessories) shop with single storey rear storage extensions and single storey shop : two of three (nos.35, 37 and 39) single storey unit in a terrace of 12 local shop units, on the western side of the secondary road; • barring the three single storey units, the rest of the parade has two floors of mainly residential accommodation above (some in roof spaces) • separated from the application site the one other single storey units is the double unit of the Silver Trumpet Public House (nos.41 and 43). Above this pub and covering its whole cartilage, ie, extending over its rear car park, are two floors of offices/community use • a service road runs along the rear of the whole parade; the site’s garage is on the west of this road • the relevant parade is of 12 units and comprises uses (starting at No.23) as follows: a fish and chip restaurant (A3); a travel agency (A1); a fire place shop (A1); a newsagent (A1); a post office (A1 – with extant A3 planning permission); a restaurant (A3 – take away); a car accessories shop (A1 – this is the application site with extant planning permission for a launderette); office (also part of application site (B1)); a shop (A1); a public house (A3 – double unit); restaurant (A3). There are 6 x A3, 4 x A1, 1 x B1 and 1 x sui generic, in terms of lawful (albeit not all implemented) uses. • there are additional, and similar, parades on the same side of the road to the north and there are houses opposite (some in non-residential use) • residential area to rear and opposite residents parking zone c) Proposal Details • provision of 3 additional floors of residential accommodation to provide 8 flats • change of use of ground floor to A2 • parking spaces at rear d) Relevant History

EAST/858/01/FUL Change of use (A1 – A2) part 1/2/3 storey GRANTED extension to provide 3 flats (Resident permit 14-DEC-2001 restricted)

EAST/934/00/FUL Change of use A1 to A2/A3 with 2//3 storey REFUSAL extension for 2 flats 30-OCT-2000

Continued/…

118 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/16 – P/2869/03/CFU continued…..

e) Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 43 3 26-JAN-2004

Summary of Response : Overlooking, loss of amenity

APPRAISAL

1. Residential Provision and Amenity UDP Policy H1, whilst recognising the need for additional dwellings, seeks to safeguard the amenity of neighbours. It is common in such locations to accept, either by conversion or new build, new residential units with no amenity space. In principle the proposal to provide additional dwellings is therefore acceptable.

The proposed relationship with the neighbouring property to the north is identical to that in the most recent application. The 45º Code would be complied with.

The floorspace above and to the rear of the public house to the south is not in residential use and there are therefore no specific amenity concerns in this regard.

2. Parking Four spaces are proposed at the rear and the residential units would be “resident permit restricted”. Given the presence of good local transport links and the proximity of shops and services the scheme merits support.

3. Retail Policy The unit at No.35 currently has permission for a non-retail use (launderette) and No.37 is in non-retail use. The proposal cannot, therefore, be objected to on retail policy grounds.

4. Consultation Responses Overlooking/Loss of Amenity – addressed above.

119 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/17 BELSWOOD COTTAGE, 42 HEATHBOURNE RD, P/468/04/CFU/GM STANMORE Ward: STANMORE PARK

SINGLE & 2 STOREY FRONT & SIDE EXT, NEW ACCESS, GARAGE WITH CAR PORT, FENCES, FRONT GATES & BRICK PIERS (REVISED)

S C FLETCHER ARCHITECTS for MR & MRS GATTAS

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 489/10A; 11A; 12; 13; 14A; 15A

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

Continued/…

120 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/17 – P/468/04/CFU continued…..

2 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. A copy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister booklet "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: explanatory booklet" is available free of charge from: ODPM Free Literature, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237 Textphone: 0870 1207 405 E-mail:[email protected] Website: http://www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/bregs/walls.htm 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E4 Protection of Structural Features E6 High Standard of Design E8 Areas of Special Character E10 Green Belt - Criteria for Development E11 Green Belt - Extensions to Buildings E35 Locally Listed Buildings - Retention and Maintenance E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design SEP5 Structural Features EP31 Areas of Special Character EP33 Development in the Green Belt EP34 Extension to Buildings in the Green Belt D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy D13 Locally Listed Buildings - Retention and Maintenance

Continued/…

121 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/17 – P/468/04/CFU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1. Green Belt and Area of Special Character (E4, E8, E10 (Revised), E11 (Revised)) (SEP5, EP31, EP33, EP34) 2. Visual Amenity/Local Listing Issues (E6, E35, E45) (SD1, D4, D5, D13) 3. Highway Safety (E45) (D4) 4. Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character Listed Building: Locally Listed Green Belt Council Interest: None b) Site Description • eastern side of Heathbourne Road opposite junction with Magpie Hall Road • contains detached, locally listed building within Green Belt • Stanmore Common abuts southern and eastern boundaries of site c) Proposal Details • revised scheme following grant of planning permission in 2001 (Ref: EAST/86/01/FUL), revisions comprise: - double garage redesigned with addition of car port and front dormer to provide room in roofspace, overall height raised by 0.3-0.5m - single storey front extension to house reduced by 1.5m in width, with addition of bay window - canopy across front of house deleted, open porch added • full details are as follows:- - single storey front extension and two storey front/side extension with open porch and bay windows - replacement double garage at front with car port - two enlarged crossovers from Heathbourne Road with replacement hardstanding - new frontage timber gates set back from road with brick piers to side and densely planted evergreen hedge in front of existing timber fence - the table below sets out changes to footprint, floorspace and volume compared to the original building.

Original and Approved scheme Proposal Total % increase existing (inc garage) (inc garage) (inc garage) Over original/existing Footprint (m2) 189 238.3 234.8 24.2% Floorspace (m2) 474.6 558.4 556.8 17.3% Volume (m2) 1121 1354.4 1377.4 22.9% Continued/…

122 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/17 – P/468/04/CFU continued…..

d) Relevant History

HRT/5031/1/78 Construction of a new entrance/exit to garage GRANTED area from Heathbourne Road 11-JUL-79

HRT/5031/4/80 Replacement garage GRANTED 29-MAY-80

(Transferred from Hertsmere April 1993)

EAST/86/01/FUL Single & two storey front and side extensions, GRANTED new accesses and double garage, frontage gates 13-SEP-2001 with brick piers

P/1469/03/CFU Single and two storey front and side extensions, WITHDRAWN new accesses and double garage with car port, 28-JUL-2003 fences and frontage gates with brick piers

e) Applicant’s Statement • two storey extension to house as approved • new access, frontage gates with brick piers as approved • single storey extension and porch to house redesigned • new garage redesigned f) Consultations Hertsmere District Council: Comments Awaited

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 2 0 25-MAR-2004

APPRAISAL

1. Green Belt and Area of Special Character The changes proposed to the approved scheme are minimal in that the footprint and floorspace would be marginally reduced and the volume marginally increased by virtue of the garage roof. It is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on the Green Belt or Area of Special Character from the changes proposed. Overall the extension and alterations proposed would not affect the openness of the site, as the main gardens are unaffected to the south and east, and would not result in disproportionate additions, over and above the size of the original dwelling.

Continued/…

123 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/17 – P/468/04/CFU continued…..

2. Visual Amenity/Local Listing Issues The alterations to the front elevation of the house would be an improvement upon the approved scheme, providing a better balance to the building with a central front porch and bays to either side. The alterations to the garage, changing from a dutch barn style roof to a crown roof would be more in keeping with the main house. The materials would match the existing building and the proposals would enhance the appearance in the streetscene.

The front gates and planting remain as previously approved and would serve to provide increased security to the front of the property and improved amenity for the occupiers by screening the road and traffic. Given the proximity of the house to the road and its remote location this is not unreasonable and would not detract from the setting of the locally listed building.

4. Highway Safety This aspect has not changed from the approved scheme. The proposal would provide for sufficient space for vehicles to pull off the road prior to entering the site, with the gates opening inwards. There would be improved visibility lines over the existing situation and they would be the maximum that can be achieved within the site. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in highway safety terms.

5. Consultation Responses None.

124 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/18 7 VILLAGE WAY EAST, HARROW P/510/04/DFU/ME2 Ward: RAYNERS LANE

SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

JRA DESIGN ASSOCIATES for T J HARRISS

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: Drawing No.100/10: Existing elevations, Existing Ground Floor Plan and Proposed Elevations, Proposed Ground Floor Plan and Site Layout

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 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. 2 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. A copy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister booklet "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: explanatory booklet" is available free of charge from: ODPM Free Literature, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237 Textphone: 0870 1207 405 E-mail:[email protected] Website: http://www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/bregs/walls.htm continued/

125 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/18 – P/510/04/DFU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1. Delivery, Access and Parking 2. Visual Appearance and Character 3. Refuse Storage

INFORMATION Details of this application are reported to Committee because of an interest of a Council member. a) Summary

Town Centre Rayners Lane Site area: 390m2 Parking spaces: 6 Area of Extensions: 12.27m2

Continued/…

126 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/18 – P/510/04/DFU continued…..

b) Description • The site is located within an area of mixed commercial/retail and residential activity on the southern side of Village Way East. Commercial shops are located on the ground floor with residential units located on the first floor of the building • The building is currently under going renovations. A change of use was permitted in 2003 from Class A1 (Shops) to Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) • The site is located within a parade of 11 units, consisting of A1, A2 and A3 uses • A double A1 unit is located to the west and A3 unit to the east, which is located adjacent to an access way • There is a parking area at the rear of the site with parking space for approximately 4-6 cars. This area is surrounded by a 2m high fence • The remainder of the site’s rear area is an open yard and there is a service road to the rear of this space • The other surrounding buildings all have rear extensions similar in scale, design and character to that which is proposed in this application c) Proposal Details

• It is proposed to construct a single storey rear extension to the rear of the premises • The extension would extend 4.8m from the rear of the existing building with has a floor area of 12.27 square metres. • The proposal would provide an extension to the shop floor. • The addition would not project any further than the existing rear extension located at No 5 Village Way East • There are no flank windows proposed d) Relevant History

P/1447/03/DFU Change of use of ground floor : Class A1 to A2 GRANTED 04-AUG-2003

e) Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 5 08-APR-2004

Continued/…

127 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/18 – P/510/04/DFU continued…..

APPRAISAL

1. Delivery, Access and Parking

A service road is located to the rear of Village Way and is used by vehicles delivering to shops, other premises and as an access route to car parking in the rear yards of surrounding premises. With regard to parking the rear of the site is currently used for parking and has space to accommodate approximately 6 cars, which would remain. The proposed extension would be minor in scale and would not generate the demand for additional parking. Given that there is sufficient existing parking and the fact that the site is serviced by local bus routes and the Underground, there can be no objection on parking grounds.

2. Visual Appearance and Character

The proposed extensions have been designed to match the existing and neighbouring buildings. The proposed extensions are considered to be in character and scale with neighbouring extension at No 1 and 5 Village Way East. There are two flank windows on the neighbouring property at No 1 which would be blocked by this proposal but they are not formerly protected.

3. Refuse Storage

The extension to the shop premises will provide extra floor space to accommodate storage; this space could also incorporate the storage of waste and a condition has been imposed requiring the submission of details. It is considered that there is sufficient space to accommodate such provision in the rear yard.

4. Consultation Responses

Awaiting response.

128 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/19 8 CHARTWELL PLACE, HARROW ON THE HILL P/591/04/CFU/GM Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

SINGLE AND TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION

DE STOC ASSOCIATES for MR & MRS ACIKALIN

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: DE/208/01B

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces noted below have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority: (a) the extension/building(s) The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To safeguard the appearance of the locality. 3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no window(s)/door(s), other than those shown on the approved plans shall be installed in the flank wall(s) of the development hereby permitted without the prior permission in writing of the local planning authority. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. 4 Detailed drawings, specifications, or samples of materials as appropriate in respect of the following shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority before the relevant part of the work is begun: a) the doors and windows b) the bricks and tiles, including the brickwork bond The works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To protect the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. 5 Restrict Use of Extensions

Continued/….

129 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/19 – P/591/04/CFU continued/…

INFORMATIVES

1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E4 Protection of Structural Features E5 Protection of Character of Conservation Areas E6 High Standard of Design E8 Areas of Special Character E35 Locally Listed Buildings - Retention and Maintenance E38 Conservation Areas - Character E39 Conservation Areas - Priority over other Policies E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SEP5 Structural Features SEP6 Areas of Special Character, Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land SD1 Quality of Design SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens EP31 Areas of Special Character D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy D13 Locally Listed Buildings - Retention and Maintenance D16 Conservation Areas D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas D18 Conservation Area Priority

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1. Character of Conservation Area and other designations (E4, E5, E8, E35, E38, E39) (SEP5, SEP6, SD2, EP31, D13, D16, D17, D18) 2. Residential Amenity (E6, E45) (SD1, D4, D5) 3. Consultation Responses ______

Continued/….

130 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/19 – P/591/04/CFU continued/…

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character Conservation Area: Roxeth Hill Council Interest: None b) Site Description • part of Roxeth Mead locally listed building within Roxeth Hill Conservation Area and Harrow on the Hill Area of Special Character • fronts Chartwell Place residential development • rear of Roxeth Mead contains windows to habitable rooms of flats/houses within the converted property and rear yards to them approximately 4m deep • adjoins communal car park and 29/31 Middle Road on higher site levels beyond retaining walls c) Proposal Details • 3.5m deep by 4.1m wide two-storey side extension with attached 1.2m wide single storey side extension • hipped roof over ‘fronting’ Chartwell Place with doors and windows to match existing building; first floor window overlooking car park, blank elevations facing yards of other properties within building d) Relevant History

LBH/42069 Conversion to provide 4 houses and 2 flats, and GRANTED various alterations to elevations to windows, new 31-MAY-91 front porch, new french windows and new roof over single-storey element

WEST/858/01/FUL Two storey side extension REFUSED 07-JAN-02

Reasons for Refusal: “1) The proposed extension, by reason of its size and siting in relation to the site boundaries, would appear unduly dominant and overbearing when viewed from adjoining residential property and would curtail light to, and outlook from, the rear of those properties, to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, contrary to Policy E45 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan.

2) The proposed extension, by reason of its size and roof design in relation to the existing building, would not reflect the scale, form and setting of the existing building, to the detriment of the character and appearance of this part of the Roxeth Hill Conservation Area”. Continued/….

131 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/19 – P/591/04/CFU continued/… e) Consultations CAAC: No objections

Advertisement Character of Cons Area Expiry 15-APR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 9 0 01-APR-04

APPRAISAL

1. Character of Conservation Area and other designations The proposal has been amended from the previously refused scheme by reducing the depth by 0.6m and altering the roof design from a crown to a full hip. It is considered that these changes would result in an extension in keeping with the existing building. The character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area would thus be preserved.

With regard to other designations, the building is locally listed and the site is within an Area of Special Character. Neither are considered to be harmed by the proposal. The building has previously been extended and altered and there would be no loss of significant features or openness of the site as a whole.

2. Residential Amenity The proposal would be sited southeast of the corner of the rear elevation of Roxeth Mead and the yards of the dwellings contained therein. The rearward projection would now comply with the Council’s 45º code at first floor level when drawn, on plan, from the nearest corner of the adjoining property.

It is the case that the rear yards do not receive substantial ambient light due to their orientation and the retaining wall and planting on the boundary with 29/31 Middle Road. It is not considered that this situation would be made significantly worse however given the orientation and size of the proposal. Overall, it is considered that there would be an acceptable impact on the neighbour’s amenities.

3. Consultation Responses None.

132 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/20 3 HILLTOP WAY, STANMORE P/2713/03/CFU/RJS Ward: STANMORE PARK

CONSERVATORY AT REAR

STORMSEAL 2000 LTD for MR & MRS LEER

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: Location Plan; No: 151/A; Existing and Proposed Plans (A3 sheet)

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 The flank elevation of the conservatory hereby approved shall be fitted with solid fixed panels and shall thereafter be retained in that form. REASON: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of neighbouring residents.

1 INFORMATIVE: The applicant is reminded that all parts of the building, including the foundations, roof and guttering, must be contained within the curtilage of the property, in order to comply with the terms of the planning permission hereby granted. 2 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. 3 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. A copy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister booklet "The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: explanatory booklet" is available free of charge from: ODPM Free Literature, PO Box 236, Wetherby, LS23 7NB Tel: 0870 1226 236 Fax: 0870 1226 237 Textphone: 0870 1207 405 E-mail:[email protected] Website: http://www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/bregs/walls.htm

Continued/…

133 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/20 – P/2713/03/CFU continued/…

Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SEP5 Structural Features SEP6 Areas of Special Character, Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land SD1 Quality of Design EP33 Development in the Green Belt EP34 Extension to Buildings in the Green Belt D4 Standard of Design and Layout

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS

1) Green Belt Land and Area of Special Character (E1, E2, E4, E6, E8, E10, E11), (SEP5, SEP6, SD1, EP33, EP34) 2) Residential Amenity (E45), (D4) 3) Consultation Response

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character Green Belt No of Residential Units: 1 Council Interest: None

Continued/…

134 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/20 – P/2713/03/CFU continued/… b) Site Description • The subject site is located on the southern side of Hilltop Way, east of the junction with Stanmore Hill; • Hilltop Way is a small cul-de-sac, accommodating 12 residential properties; • The building on the subject site is a two storey semi-detached dwelling. A single garage with first floor side to rear extension is sited along the western side elevation. • The dwelling has been extended after the period in which it was originally constructed; c) Proposal Details • Construct a rear conservatory in the space between the two storey rear wing and east side boundary; • The conservatory would have a depth of 3.05 metres and boundary wall height ranging from 2.1 metres to 2.4 metres; d) Relevant History

LBH/34924 single and two-storey side to rear extension GRANTED 06-APR-1988

EAST/489/00/FUL alteration to roof to form end gable and rear REFUSED dormer 19-JUN-2000

Reason for Refusal: “the proposed roof extension by reason of excessive size and bulk, would be unduly obtrusive and overbearing, would detract from the appearance of this, and adjoining properties, and be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties”. e) Consultations

Notification Sent Replies Expiry 3 1 27-FEB-04

Response: Proposal constitutes a disproportionate addition to the size of the property as originally built. Conservatory will hem in neighbour by loss of garden open space impacting on the present openness. Height of conservatory at boundary will be 1.3 metres above the existing boundary fence that will obstruct the present open views.

Continued/…

135 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/20 – P/2713/03/CFU continued/…

APPRAISAL

1) Green Belt Land and Area of Special Character Although the subject site is located within the Green Belt Hilltop Way does not have the typical appearance of Green Belt land due to its suburban character of two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. With respect to the extension of dwellinghouses, Green Belt polices aim to restrict the increase in size of dwellings within the Metropolitan Green Belt, in order to safeguard its openness. However as highlighted above, the locality is not typical of Green Belt land. Likewise many of the dwellings within the street have had extensive additions undertaken. The subject building has been previously extended with a two-storey side to rear extension.

With respect of the openness of the Green Belt it is highlighted that the proposal is to infill the space between the rear wing and side boundary with a single storey conservatory. As such this would not block any significant views across the property nor amount to a reduction of the openness of Green Belt land. The percentage increase for footprint, floor area and volume are as follows:

Original Existing % over proposed % over original original Footprint 65.28 87.7 +34.34% 106.76 +63.54% (m2) Floor 113.46 144.02 +26.93% 163.08 +43.73% Area (m2) Volume 248.56 302.32 +21.62% 353.79 +42.33% (m3)

With respect of the above percentages, the original dwellinghouse was quite small in size. Likewise as has already been argued above, it is considered that the proposal would not detrimentally impact upon the openness of the Green Belt being a small extension typical of this type of semi-detached housing. Therefore the percentage increases as detailed above are not considered to be of concern.

2) Residential Amenity Although the neighbour has raised objections to the proposed conservatory (with respect of loss of light and outlook) it meets the design criteria and requirements of Harrow’s Supplementary Planning Guidance. Specifically its depth would be limited to the maximum of 3.0 metres, whilst its height (2.1 to 2.4 metres) is well below the maximum or average suggested height of 3.0 metres. On this basis, objections to the development on loss of light and outlook cannot be sustained.

3) Consultation Responses All points of objection raised have been addressed in the report above.

136 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/21 3 CANONS DRIVE, EDGWARE P/2676/03/CFU/JH Ward: CANONS

SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

D R JOYNER for MR & MRS LAWRENCE

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: OS Plan, 3875/2.

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E4 Protection of Structural Features E5 Protection of Character of Conservation Areas E6 High Standard of Design E38 Conservation Areas - Character E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens D4 Standard of Design and Layout D16 Conservation Areas D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas

Continued/…

137 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/21 – P/2676/03/CFU continued/…

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1) Neighbouring Amenity (E45), (D4) 2) Appearance or Character of Conservation Area (E4, E5, E6, E38), (SD2, D16, D17) 3) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Conservation Area: Canons Park Estate Council Interest: None. b) Site Description • Two storey detached dwelling set on a large corner plot on the south side of Canons Drive; • Site located within the Canons Park Estate Conservation Area; • Dwelling has been previously extended including 2-storey side extension; • Canons Drive comprises mainly large detached dwellings on sizeable open plots. c) Proposal Details • Erect single storey L-shaped rear extension with a crown roof and central roof light; • The alterations would extend the current line of the building by 2.1m and then step in from the side away from the boundary by 1.3m before extending a further 2.65m to the rear; • Alterations to include a total height of 3.6m and overall width of 5.9m. d) Relevant History

LBH/14735 Erection of two storey extension to side of GRANTED dwellinghouse 04-JUN-1979

e) Consultations CAAC: No objection – Prefer the option shown on the main plan.

Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 01-JAN-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 3 0 24-DEC-03 Continued/…

138 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/21 – P/2676/03/CFU continued/…

1) Neighbouring Amenity It is not envisaged that there would be any impact on neighbouring amenity such as loss of light or privacy. The proposal is for a single storey extension and largely set away from the side boundary with the closest neighbour (1 Canons Drive).

2) Appearance or Character of Conservation Area The character and appearance of the Canons Park Estate Conservation Area would be largely unaffected by the proposal. The alterations would not be visible in the street scene and finished in materials to match the existing dwelling.

3) Consultation Responses None.

139 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/22 TREMAR, 10 GREEN LANE, STANMORE P/3017/03/CFU/RJS Ward: STANMORE PARK

DETACHED GARAGE (AMENDED SITING) AND PAVING OF FORECOURT AT FRONT AND CONSERVATORY AT REAR

G E POTTLE for MR & MRS CHOWDHARY

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: Ordinance Survey; Drg. No. 1802/04 Rev. C

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match 3 Water - Disposal of Surface Water 4 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of a 'no dig' construction method for the driveway paving have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure that no detriment is caused to the trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order. INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 3 Standard Informative 36 – Measurements from Submitted Plans 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E5 Protection of Character of Conservation Areas E6 High Standard of Design E38 Conservation Areas - Character E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development T13 Car Parking Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens D4 Standard of Design and Layout D16 Conservation Areas D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas T13 Parking Standards Continued/…..

140 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/11 - P/3017/03/CFU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1 Conservation Area Character and Appearance (E5, E6, E38), (SD1, SD2, D16, D17) 2 Residential Amenity (E45), (D4) 3 Parking (T13), (T13) 4 Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

TPO Conservation Area: Stanmore Hill Council Interest: None b) Site Description

• hipped-roof detached dwellinghouse on eastern side of Green Lane. A recently approved development allowed the conversion of a garage to form an extension to the dwellinghouse; • to north: detached house; • to south: detached house; • a large area of tarmac hardstanding is located to the forecourt of the dwelling; c) Proposal Details

• construct a conservatory to the rear of the building; • construct a double garage to the frontage of the site; • pave the existing driveway with Cobble Block Paving (Marshall Tegula Cobble set: Natural Colour); d) Relevant Planning History

P/2377/03/CFU single storey side extension and use of garage GRANTED as habitable room 19-JAN-04 e) Consultations

CAAC (1st consultation): Concern at the close proximity of the garage to the road as it would be isolated from other built form and would consequently stand out in the street scene. The building has curved walls – perhaps this could be mimicked in the conservatory. The proposed conservatory has a poor relationship with the balcony of the main house. Accept the principle that a conservatory could be possible but it needs to be influenced by the design of the main house. Continued/…..

141 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/22 - P/3017/03/CFU continued…..

CAAC (2nd consultation): There is an excessive amount of hard surfacing in this proposal, and no planting/ bedding to the front of the property. This is unacceptable. The previous objections in relation to this proposal still stand, including in relation to the position of the proposed new garage.

CAAC (3nd consultation): Comments awaited

1st Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 12-DEC-03

2nd Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 04-MAR-04

3rd Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 15-APR-04 1st Notification Sent Replies Expiry 6 1 29-JAN-04

Response: Adjacent property is located down slope, being approximately 1.0 metre lower. Proposed hardstanding could effect natural soak away drainage and may impact upon water table. No objection to the building of a detached garage and rear conservatory however natural soak away drainage is built into the design of the hard standing area at the front of the site. Trees along common boundary are covered by a TPO. Wants to ensure the health and longevity of these trees and that they are not impacted upon by the proposed building works.

2nd Notification Sent Replies Expiry 6 0 16-FEB-04

3rd Notification Sent Replies Expiry 6 06-APR-04

APPRAISAL

1) Conservation Area Character and Appearance

The proposed free standing garage would be constructed and finished in materials and colours to match the existing building. Although sited forward of the main house, a variety of frontage setbacks exist in the immediate locality. This would ensure that the proposed garage would not be unduly prominent in its proposed forecourt siting. Continued/…..

142 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/22 - P/3017/03/CFU continued…..

The proposed forecourt paving would replace the existing tarmac hardsurface to the frontage of the site. The proposed paving would be of an unobtrusive material and colour. Additionally the extent of paving coverage would be limited to the extent of the existing hard surface area. Overall the proposed works would compliment the general style of other forecourt paving within the immediate vicinity to ensure that the character and appearance of the conservation area would be preserved.

The rear conservatory is relatively simple in design, with its overall height matching the height of the first floor rear balcony. From a Conservation perspective no objection is raised to this.

Overall it is considered that the elements forming the proposed scheme would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

2) Residential Amenity

Although the proposed garage abuts the front garden of the adjoining neighbour to the north, it is sited away from the neighbour’s dwelling. Accordingly no concern is raised with respect of the siting of the proposed garage.

With respect of the proposed conservatory by virtue of its siting, it would be adequately setback from adjoining properties and therefore would not cause any detrimental impacts to neighbours.

3) Parking

Apart from the proposed double garage it is highlighted that there is ample on site parking available with regard to the large expanse of hard surfacing located to the forecourt of the property. This available parking more then adequately complies with the parking standards set out in the adopted UDP.

4) Consultation Responses

Apart for the points raised above, the following is raised with respect of the remaining consultation and notification responses:

• a condition of approval would require details of disposal of surface water to be submitted to and approved by the Council; • the existing garden beds located along the southern boundary of the site are to be retained with the proposed forecourt paving. This would ensure that no detrimental impacts are caused for the trees located along this common boundary. A further condition of approval would require details for the construction the driveway paving to be submitted for approved. The condition would specify a ‘no dig’ construction method to again ensure no detrimental impacts are cause for trees on site; Continued/…..

143 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/22 - P/3017/03/CFU continued…..

144 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/23 CASTLEWOOD, PINNER HILL, PINNER, CASTLEWOOD P/388/04/CFU/RJS Ward: PINNER

FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION WITH PITCHED ROOF

MIDDLESEX & HERTS for MR & MRS HARJETTE

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: Ordinance Survey, HAR/0609/OP/02/1, HAR/0609/OP/02/2, HAR/0609/OP/02/3A, HAR/0609/OP/02/4A

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E1 Integrity of Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Areas of Special Character E2 Protection of Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land E4 Protection of Structural Features E5 Protection of Character of Conservation Areas E6 High Standard of Design E10 Green Belt - Criteria for Development E11 Green Belt - Extensions to Building E38 Conservation Areas - Character E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development T13 Car Parking Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SEP5 Structural Features SEP6 Areas of Special Character, Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land SD1 Quality of Design SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens EP33 Development in the Green Belt EP34 Extension to Buildings in the Green Belt D4 Standard of Design and Layout D16 Conservation Areas Continued/…..

145 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/23 - P/388/04/CFU continued…..

D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas T13 Parking Standards

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

4) Green Belt Land and Area of Special Character 5) Conservation Area Character and Appearance 6) Residential Amenity 4) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character Conservation Area: Pinner Hill Estate Green Belt Council Interest: None b) Site Description

• The subject site is located on the western side of Pinner Hill, south of its intersection with Hillside Road; • A double storey detached dwelling is located on the property; c) Proposal Details

• Construct a first floor rear extension. The first floor of the building currently accommodates a balcony to the south west rear corner of the building. Part of the balcony would to be infilled to accommodate the first floor extension; • The first floor extension would have a depth of 2.65 metres and a width of 5.2 metres; • The rear elevation of the extension would feature pitched and gable roof to match the style and design of the existing dwellinghouse; • Internally the addition would provide an ensuite bathroom; • As the extension would not cover the full area of the upper floor balcony, an ‘L’ shaped balcony would remain and would be accessed via a doorway in the south facing flank elevation. The door would be fixed with obscure glazing;

Continued/…..

146 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/23 - P/388/04/CFU continued….. d) Relevant Planning History

LBH/20810 two storey side extension GRANTED 18-MAR-1982 e) Consultations

Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 01-APR-04

Notification Sent Replies Expiry 3 0 18-MAR-04

APPRAISAL

1) Green Belt Land and Area of Special Character

With respect of the extension of dwellinghouses, Green Belt polices aim to restrict the increase in size of dwellings within the Metropolitan Green Belt, in order to safeguard the openness of it.

The area is characterised by large dwellinghouses set in ample plots, with generally abundant and mature boundary vegetation and space around the buildings. With regard to proposed additions, the works would take place entirely within the existing building’s footprint. The proposal would infill part of an existing first floor balcony to the south-west corner of the building. With the extension limited in footprint (1.75 x 4.4 metres) it would amount to a very small increase in building floorspace and volume. Likewise as the extension would infill a corner to the rear of the building it would not block any views. Therefore it is considered to constitute a minor element of work that would not have a detrimental impact on the openness of the locality with regard to the Green Belt Policy. Accordingly it is deemed that the proposed additions would not be harmful to the Green Belt.

Original Existing % over original proposed % over original Footprint (m2) 111.73 120.11 + 7.5 % No change No change Floor Area (m2) 199.93 206.87 + 3.5 % 214.57 + 7.3 % Volume (m3) 737.18 767.07 + 4.0 % 785.79 + 8.7 %

2) Conservation Area Character and Appearance

The proposed first floor extension is considered to constitute a minor element of work that would have no detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Continued/…..

147 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/23 - P/388/04/CFU continued…..

3) Residential Amenity

The extension would be setback 7.5 metres from the common boundary line with the closest neighbour. Furthermore the opening in the flank elevation facing this neighbouring property is to be infilled with an obscure glazed door. Furthermore as the extension would infill the majority of the existing first floor balcony, it would actually diminish opportunity for overlooking of the adjoining property. For these reason the proposal would not cause a detrimental impact on any adjoining neighbour.

8) Consultation Responses

None.

148 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/24 83 HIGH ST, EDGWARE P/176/04/CFU/RJS Ward: CANONS

RAISE SECTION OF ROOF OF REAR STORE BY APPROXIMATELY 0.5 METRES.

STEPHEN WAX ARCHITECTS for MSSRS GEORGIOU

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: SW205 - 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match

INFORMATIVES

149 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/24 - P/176/04/CFU continued…..

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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E5 Protection of Character of Conservation Areas E6 High Standard of Design E38 Conservation Areas – Character E46 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Non-Residential Development T13 Car Parking Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design SD2 Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Sites of Archaeological Importance and Historic Parks and Gardens D4 Standard of Design and Layout D7 Design in Retail Areas and Town Centres D13 Locally Listed Buildings – Retention and Maintenance D16 Conservation Areas D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas T13 Car Parking Standards

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS & POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1) Conservation Area Character & Appearance (E5, E6, E35, E38), (SD1, SD2, D13, D16, D17) 2) Neighbouring Amenity (E46), (D4, D7) 3) Parking (T13), (T13) 4) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Locally Listed Building Conservation Area: Edgware High Street Council Interest: None b) Site Description • Western side of High Street, just north of junction with Whitchurch Lane within Edgware High Street Conservation Area; • The frontage section of the building, which is locally listed, is self contained and is occupied by a betting office on ground floor with residential over; • Single storey flat roofed rear extension projects into Rodwell Place and is used partly in conjunction with the betting office, with the remaining rear section used as a separate and self contained warehouse; Continued/….. 150 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/24 - P/176/04/CFU continued…..

• The application details state that the warehouse is used for meat storage and pickling; • Located to the north of the site are shops and residential premises within the Conservation Area; • Located to the south of the site is Lanson House, a 3 storey parade consisting of commercial uses on ground floor with residential above; • Parking and storage uses are located to the rear of the site; • Rodwell Place is used for access, servicing and parking; • 3 parking spaces are located on site adjacent to the rear elevation of the building; c) Proposal Details

• Increase the height of the single storey building by 0.5 metres; • Close up two window openings in the south west facing rear elevation of the building; • Install a ground floor window in the south east facing side elevation of the building; • The increase in the height of the building would allow the warehouse to be internally split into two levels. At ground floor it would accommodate a preparation area, cold room, cold store, kitchen while the floor would accommodate storage area, toilet facilities, changing room and kitchen; d) Relevant History

EAST/40/00/FUL Change Of Use: Retail To Betting Office (Class GRANTED A1 to A2) 21-FEB-2000

P/782/03/DFU Additional Floor at Rear and Conversion to REFUSED Provide 2 Additional Flats 21-JUL-2003

e) Consultations

CAAC: The raised flat roof should have a parapet detail which matches the existing.

Advertisement Character of Expiry Conservation Area 11-MAR-2004

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 9 0 26-FEB-04

Continued/…..

151 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/24 - P/176/04/CFU continued…..

APPRAISAL

1) Urban Character & Neighbouring Amenity

The proposed extension represents a nominal increase in height of the existing building. The increase in height of the building would not impact upon on any adjoining property. This is particularly highlighted by the fact that Rodwell Place is an unattractive, back of shops area, characterised by parking and related commercial activity. Along the north western side boundary, the building directly abuts the neighbouring building. To the southeast side boundary, the building abuts an open carpark area. Along the southwest rear boundary, the building abuts Rodwell Place. For these reasons it is considered that the increase in the height of the subject building by 0.5 metres would not cause a detrimental impact to any person or property.

2) Impact on Locally Listed Building

The front section of the building is the original two-storey terrace of which the Local Listing applies. The rear section of the building represents a later addition that has no specific architectural, design or heritage importance. Accordingly a 0.5 metre increase to the height of this rear section of building would not cause a detrimental impact over the original two storey section of building located to the street frontage.

3) Parking

The proposed development would not result in the loss of any space utilised for car parking. Specifically there is the ability to park three vehicles to the rear of the building. This is considered sufficient given the town centre location. Likewise there is no change of use proposed, as the established warehouse storage/ meat pickling business is to continue operations from the site. The proposed increase in floor area is relatively small in scale and would not represent a significant increase. Rather, the proposal represents the reorganisation and reconfiguration of the existing business, which is not subject to specific controls.

4) Consultation Responses

None.

152 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/25 105 WHITCHURCH LANE, EDGWARE P/130/04/CFU/PDB Ward: CANONS

SINGLE STOREY SIDE TO REAR EXTENSION AND CONVERSION TO THREE SELF- CONTAINED FLATS.

DAVID BARNARD for CITY & COUNTY LTD

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 3B.

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match 3 Restrict Use of Roof as a Balcony 4 Noise - Insulation of Building(s) - 4 5 Refuse Arrangements - Use 6 Landscaping to be Approved 7 Landscaping to be Implemented

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 19 – Flank Windows 2 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 3 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 4 Standard Informative 36 – Measurements from Submitted Plans 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development H10 Conversions T13 Car Parking Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: S1 Form of Development and Pattern of Land Use SD1 Quality of Design D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy H10 Conversions of Houses and Other Buildings to Flats T13 Parking Standards

Continued/….. 153 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/25 - P/130/04/CFU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1. Amenity and character of proposed conversion 2. Amenity and character of proposed extension 3. Parking and access 4. Consultation responses

INFORMATION

Details of this application are reported to the Committee at the request of a Nominated member. a) Summary

Council Interest: None b) Site Description • two storey Victorian semi-detached dwelling (vacant) with original net floor area of 142m2 and a single storey rear kitchen addition of some 7.5m2 (balcony over) • single width crossover serves the forecourt and drive to side of dwelling; rear garden area of 185m2 • adjoining semi to east, no. 103, not converted • neighbouring property to west, “Thorndale”, a three storey residential flat block; facing flank wall contains bathroom windows only, common boundary delineated by 2m high concrete wall • rear of application site bounded by garage blocks serving Norfolk House residential flats • Whitchurch Lane on-street parking prohibited Mon-Fri 2-3pm; designated as a secondary road on adopted UDP proposals map and as a borough distributor road on the emerging replacement UDP proposals map c) Proposal Details • proposed conversion to three flats as approved under P/1843/03/CFU • permission now sought to vary the single storey extension therein approved by adding a rearward projection of 1m • flank walls 3m from boundary with 105 and 1.1m from Thorndale; flat roof to height of 3m

Continued/…..

154 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/25 - P/130/04/CFU continued….. d) Relevant History

P/1045/03/DFU: Single Storey Side to Rear Extension & Conversion REFUSED of Dwellinghouse to Three Self-Contained Flats 23-JUN-03

Reasons for Refusal:-

1. The proposed rear extension, by reason of excessive bulk and rearward projection, would be unduly obtrusive, result in loss of light and overshadowing, and would be detrimental to the visual and residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent property. 2. The number of converted properties in this road is already in excess of that considered appropriate, and additional conversions would result in the further loss of character of the road, and an imbalance in the mix of dwelling types and sizes, contrary to the adopted conversion policy of the local planning authority.

P/1843/03/CFU: Single Storey Side Extension & Conversion GRANTED of Dwellinghouse to Three Self-Contained Flats 15-DEC-03 e) Notifications

Sent: 13 Replies: Expiry: awaited 31-MAR-03

APPRAISAL

1. Amenity and character of proposed conversion

The proposal would add 3m2 to the rear lounge of one of the approved ground floor flats, and would reduce its rear amenity space by 4.3m from 60m2 to 55.7m2. It is not considered that such a reduction is so significant as to lead to unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers, and the creation of a slightly larger living space would clearly enhance the standard of accommodation to be provided.

There has been no material change in circumstances that would now dictate against the replica approval of the conversion to flats.

2. Amenity and character of proposed extension

The extension refused under P/1045/03/DFU was to have been 3m deep across much of the width of the plot. The extension the subject of this current application has itself been the subject of amendment to secure compliance with the Council’s householder guidelines, in relation to neighbouring property.

Continued/…..

155 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/25 - P/130/04/CFU continued…..

In relation to no. 105, the siting and rearward projection of the extension – both well within the Council’s guidelines for such developments - would be such as to have no undue effect on the amenities of the occupiers of that property by reason light, outlook and visual bulk. The amendments to the extension also secure compliance with the Council’s guidelines in relation to Thorndale, having regard to the siting and separation relationship between the two, and again it is considered that the impact on the occupiers of the adjacent ground floor flat would also be acceptable.

3. Parking and access

No change in the approved arrangements, which as previously reported are acceptable.

4. Consultation Responses None

156 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/26 2 BANCROFT RD, HARROW WEALD P/275/04/CFU/PDB Ward: HARROW WEALD

TWO STOREY SIDE TO REAR EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, REAR DORMER (REVISED)

MR R S CHANA for MR & MRS T PANCHAL

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: T/188/01, 02 & 03; site plan

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match 3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no window(s)/door(s), other than those shown on the approved plan no T/188/01, 02 & 03 shall be installed in the west facing flank and first floor rear wall(s) of the development hereby permitted without the prior permission in writing of the local planning authority. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. 4 The window(s) in the first floor rear wall(s) of the proposed development shall: (a) be of purpose-made obscure glass, (b) be permanently fixed closed below a height of 1.8m above finished floor level, and shall thereafter be retained in that form. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 19 – Flank Windows 2 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 3 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 4 Standard Informative 38 - Reasons For Grant – Householder Application 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy Continued/….

157 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/26 - P/275/04/CFU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1. Amenity and character (E6, E45, SD1, D4, D5) 2. Parking and access (E6, E45, SD1, D4, D5) 3. Consultation responses

INFORMATION

Details of this application are reported to the Committee as a petition has been received and the proposal is recommended for approval. a) Summary

Council Interest: None b) Site Description • two storey brick and gabled semi-detached dwelling on north side of Bancroft Walk, Harrow Weald • property is adjacent to an informal area of open space on this side of junction of Bancroft Road and Carmelite Road; the dwelling is therefore effectively the corner property • due to surrounding levels, application site is set down from Carmelite Road street level but up from Bancroft Road street level; front partially hardsurfaced; rear garden enclosed by 1.8m high close boarded fence • attached semi, no. 4, on slightly lower level and unextended • neighbouring property at rear, no. 177 Carmelite Road, sited perpendicular to the application dwelling with its flank wall 13m from the rear main wall of the application dwelling; flank wall contains kitchen and landing windows • nearby no. 183 Carmelite Road has a two storey side extension with a subordinate gable roof and a 1m first floor set back from the front c) Proposal Details • two storey side extension: both storeys sited 1m from flank boundary and 1m set-back from front – subordinate gable-ended roof over • single storey rear extension 3m deep; western flank wall sited adjacent to boundary with no. 4; eastern flank wall sited 1.5m from other side boundary • first floor rear 1.8m deep; western flank wall sited 6.6m from boundary with no. 4; eastern flank wall sited 1.5m from other side boundary – subordinate gabled roof over • extensions to be finished in brick to match the existing dwelling • rear dormer sited 0.75m from party boundary with no. 4 and 3.9m from original end- gable; rear face of dormer sited 1.6m from eaves (measured externally along the roofslope from the eaves) Continued/…..

158 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/26 - P/275/04/CFU continued….. d) Relevant History

P/2667/03/DFU: Two Storey Side to Rear, Single Storey REFUSED Rear Extension, Rear Dormer 06-JAN-04

Reasons for Refusal:

1. The proposed two storey side to rear extension, by reason of its size and inadequate spatial setting on this prominent corner site, would appear unduly bulky, overbearing and obtrusive when viewed in the streetscene and from surrounding vantage points, and would over-dominate the profile and proportions of the original dwelling, to the detriment of the visual amenity and character of the locality. 2. The proposed single storey rear extension, by reason of its rearward projection and siting, would appear unduly bulky and obtrusive when viewed from no. 4 Bancroft Road, and would unduly curtail light to the rear of that property, to the detriment of the visual and residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers. 3. The proposed first floor rear bedroom window, by reason of its height and siting, would permit undue overlooking of no. 177 Carmelite Road, to the detriment of the privacy amenity of the occupiers of that property. An informative on the decision notice recommended the following revisions: (i) Set the first floor front wall back from the front main wall of the original dwelling by at least 1m. (ii) Re-site the first floor flank wall of the side extension at least 1m from the side boundary and the first floor flank wall of the rear extension at least 1.5m from the side boundary. Provide a subordinate, gabled roof over the resulting first floor element. (iii) Reduce the depth of the rear extension to 3m. (iv) Omit windows to habitable rooms from the first floor rear elevation of the extension e) Notifications

Sent: Replies: Expiry: 11 4 letters and 1 petition 11-MAR-04 (59 names)

Summary of Responses: Loss of light/sunlight/outlook to sky, overshadowing, bulk, density, overlooking, disturbance, road safety, dominant/cramped design, out of character, loss of privacy, overdevelopment, detrimental to environment, conservation area and trees, misleading plans, drainage, flood risk, sewage, foundations, subsidence on hill, noise, extensive building works, fire risks, exit for emergency vehicles blocked, increased number of tenants will add to parking problems, appearance out of character, detrimental to original housing layout.

Continued/…..

159 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/26 - P/275/04/CFU continued…..

APPRAISAL

1. Amenity and character

By setting the front wall of the side extension back from that of the original front main wall of the dwelling, the proposal reduces the bulk of the extension relative to that previously refused, while preserving some of the profile of the original building and securing a subordinate roof over the extension. Combined with 1m separation of the flank wall from the side boundary, the resulting extension is also considered to retain a satisfactory spatial setting for the larger building within the context of the site boundaries.

The siting of the outer flank wall of the first floor projection out to the rear provides further improvement, in terms of spatial setting for the extension, when viewed from surrounding vantage points and avoids the formation of a monotonous expanse of flank wall by securing a visual break in line with the original rear main wall of the house. In relation to no. 4, the first floor rear would sit well within a 45o line drawn, on plan, from the adjacent rear corner of that property. Having regard to this relationship and the distances to dwellings at the front and rear (22m and 11m respectively) it is not considered that the two storey extensions would lead to undue loss of light/outlook, overshadowing or visual bulk that would be detrimental to the amenity of any neighbouring occupiers.

Accordingly it is considered that the proposal overcomes the previous reason for refusal no. 1.

As a reflection of the design of the original building, the use of gabled rather than hipped roofs is acceptable.

The first floor rear bedroom window within the proposed extension would be high level with the main window to the side, overlooking the adjacent area of informal public open space. Such an arrangement is considered to be acceptable, avoiding any undue actual or perceived overlooking (with glazing controls) of no. 177 Carmelite Road whilst increasing natural surveillance of the open space. Neither, in view of the distances involved, would there be any loss of privacy amenity to the occupiers of property on the opposite side of Bancroft and Carmelite Roads. Accordingly it is considered that the proposal overcomes the previous reason for refusal no. 3.

The proposed single storey rear extension has been amended, following the previous refusal, to reduce its depth from 3.6m to 3m. It would have a lean-to roof over to a height of 3m at the mid-point. The resulting relationship now complies with the Council’s householder guidelines for such extensions to semi-detached property. Consequently it is not considered that there would be any unreasonable effect on light to, or outlook from, the adjacent property nor any unduly bulky visual impact. Accordingly it is considered that the proposal overcomes the previous reason for refusal no. 2 Continued/…..

160 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/26 - P/275/04/CFU continued…..

The rear dormer, which fully complies with the Council’s householder guidelines for such developments, remains as previously proposed and to which no objection was raised. It is not considered that there would be any detriment to the amenity of any neighbouring occupiers from this element by reason of bulk, light, or loss of privacy.

2. Parking and access

As an extension to an existing dwellinghouse within this established residential locality it is not considered that the proposal gives rise to any requirement for further off-street parking.

3. Consultation Responses • Density: not relevant to extension proposals • Disturbance: informative suggested • road safety: No significant impact from a domestic extension anticipated • overdevelopment: it is not considered that the revised proposal is an overdevelopment • detrimental to environment: it is not considered that the proposal would be detrimental to the environment • conservation area and trees: not a conservation area and no protected trees • misleading plans: plans are acceptable • drainage: building control matter • floodrisk: not an identified flood plain • sewage: a matter for the statutory undertaker • foundations: a building control matter • subsidence: a building control matter • extensive building works: a domestic extension • fire risks: building control matter • exit for emergency vehicles blocked: the development would not block any highway • increased number of tenants will add to parking problems: the lawful use of the property is as a Class C3 dwellinghouse • detrimental to original housing layout: amended proposal considered to be acceptable

161 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/27 23 CROWSHOTT AVE, STANMORE P/134/04/DFU/PDB Ward: BELMONT

TWO STOREY SIDE TO REAR EXTENSION TO FORM HOUSE;SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO EXISTING HOUSE PARKING AND ACCESS AT FRONT

SIMON HANDS & ASSOCIATES for MR & MRS MCMAHON

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: Plan Nos.01B, 0ZD, site plan

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match 3 Restrict Use of Roof as a Balcony 4 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for:- (a) The storage and disposal of refuse/waste (b) and vehicular access thereto has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied or used until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To ensure adequate standards of hygiene and refuse/waste collection without prejudice to the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties. 5 Noise - Insulation of Building(s) – 4 6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no window(s)/door(s) shall be installed in the first floor east-facing flank wall(s) of the development hereby permitted without the prior permission in writing of the local planning authority. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. 7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), no development which would otherwise fall within Classes A to E in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out 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 dwelling in relation to the size of the plot and availability of:- (a) amenity space (b) parking space and to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents within the curtilage of the original and approved dwellings. Continued/…..

162 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/27 – P/134/04/DFU continued/….

8 The development hereby approved shall not commence until a scheme for the soft landscaping of the forecourt (including the closure of the existing vehicular crossing) has first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved dwelling shall not be occupied until the scheme so agreed has been implemented, and shall thereafter be retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the approved development makes a positive contribution to the established streetscene by securing an appropriate level of forecourt greenery, in the interests of the visual amenity.

1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 3 Standard Informative 36 – Measurements from Submitted Plans 4 Standard Informative 19 – Flank Windows INFORMATIVE REASON FOR GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION: The decision to grant permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E30 Streetside Greenness and Forecourt Greenery E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Non-Residential Development E51 Noise Nuisance T13 Car Parking Standards

Revised Deposit Draft Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy D9 Streetside Greenness and Forecourt Greenery EP25 Noise T13 Parking Standards

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Amenity and character (E6, E45, SD1, D4, D5) 2. Parking and access (E6, E45, SD1, D4, D5) 3. Consultation responses

Continued/…..

163 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/27 – P/134/04/DFU continued/….

INFORMATION Details of this application are reported to the Committee at the request of a nominated Member. a) Summary

Car Parking: Standard: 4 (4) Justified: 3 (3) Provided: 3 (3) No. of Units: 1 No. of Habitable Rooms: 4 Council Interest: None b) Site Description • two storey brick semi-detached dwelling on south side of Crowshott Avenue, Stanmore; located on corner of Amnersh Grove • attached garage at side with single crossover to front; forecourt partially hardsurfaced • attached semi to east, no. 21, unextended at rear and garage to side • neighbouring semi to west and on handed junction corner, no. 25, has single storey extensions at side and part rear, porch at front • no. 1 Amnersh Grove, at rear, has single storey side to rear extensions (flank wall adjacent to common boundary); first floor flank wall has stair and bathroom windows • grass verge on adjacent part of Amnersh Grove has two street trees c) Proposal Details • two storey side to rear extension to form new house: • side extension 5.5m wide with flank wall parallel to original house; 1m set-back at first floor front and subordinate hipped roof over • flank wall of side extension to contain bathroom (ground) and stair (first floor) windows • rear element 2.9m deep at ground floor level and 1.9m deep at first floor level; outer flank wall sited 0.6m further from the boundary than that of the side extension • single storey rear extension to original dwelling: • 2.9m deep; inner flank wall (to contain main kitchen window) sited 3.2m from boundary with no. 21 • flat roof to height of 2.8m • proposed new house to comprise four habitable rooms; garden (after extensions) to be subdivided to provide 84.5m2 for new dwelling and 80m2 for existing dwelling • forecourt hardsurfacing to be increased to serve the existing and proposed dwellings in conjunction with re-siting of existing single width crossover away from Amnersh Grove junction

Continued/…..

164 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/27 – P/134/04/DFU continued/…. d) Relevant History

P/1265/03/DFU: Detached House, Parking at Front on Land at Side; Single Storey Rear Extension; Alterations and Front Parking at No. 23; refused 27-Aug-2003 4. The proposed two storey dwelling, by reason of its excessive size and bulk and prominent siting, would be unduly obtrusive with inadequate space about the buildings, would result in over-development of the site and contribute to a terracing effect and would detract from the established pattern of development in the streetscene and the character of the locality. 5. The proposed parking arrangements would require provision of an additional crossover in close proximity to the existing crossover and the corner, which would be detrimental to road safety. 6. The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of trees of significant amenity value which, in the opinion of the local planning authority, would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality.

e) Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 5 3 11-MAR-2004

Summary of responses: Overdevelopment, out of character, parking, existing access dangerous, new access opposite existing, tree loss, terracing, bulky, should have garages, same as previous proposal.

APPRAISAL 1. Amenity and character of extensions The house the subject of the previously refused application was to have had a width of 5.5m and a depth of 8.4m, separated from the original dwelling by a gap of 0.6m and with its outer flank wall sited between 0.3m and 0.7m from the side boundary to Amnersh Grove. The house was to have no set back in relation to the front main wall of the original, but bay windows to the front and rear elevations adding to the overall depth.

The subject proposal differs from that of the previous proposal, in a number of significant respects: the provision of a 1m set back at the front (and consequently a subordinate hipped roof), the retention of a gap of between 1.1m and 1.5m between the flank wall of the side extension and the side boundary (increasing to a distance of between 1.6m and 1.7m in respect of the rear projection), and the form of the development as an extension of the existing dwelling (with no front or rear bays), rather than a new detached building. The subject proposal fully accords with the Council’s householder guidelines for two storey side to rear extensions on corner plots, and is considered to adequately contain the bulk of building on this prominent site with adequate spatial setting in the context of the site’s own boundaries.

Continued/…..

165 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/27 – P/134/04/DFU continued/….

The objection to the previous proposal on grounds of terracing related specifically to the impact of the house, with no set-back, at such close proximity to the original dwelling. Although the subject proposal is physically attached to the original dwelling, the provision of a set back and subordinate roof are considered to be adequate safeguards against the perception of terracing in the streetscene. From surrounding vantage points the proposal would be more likely to be perceived as an extension of the type permissible under the Council’s guidelines and common in this locality, rather than as an obvious in-fill development as previously proposed.

For these reasons it is not considered that the proposal would appear as an overdevelopment or be detrimental to the established pattern of development/character of the locality. Accordingly it is considered that the previous reason for refusal no. 1 has been overcome.

The first floor rear projection would sit well within a 45o line drawn, on plan, from the adjacent rear corner of no. 21. The projection would also sit within a 45o line drawn from the inner corner of the rear bay window of no. 23 (the nearest adjacent first floor window serving only a bathroom and the ground floor kitchen to be extended). In these circumstances it is not considered that there would be any detriment to the amenities of the neighbouring. In these circumstances it is not considered that there would be any detriment to the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers (or the occupiers of the application dwelling) by reason of overshadowing, loss of light/outlook or visual bulk.

Similarly, by reason of its siting from the boundary and in accordance with the Council’s guidelines, neither is it considered that the proposed single storey rear extension to the existing dwelling would be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in terms of light/outlook, visual impact or overlooking.

A distance of 13m would be maintained between the ground floor rear elevation of the extensions and the rear boundary, extending to 14m at first floor level. Such a distance is considered to be sufficient to safeguard the pattern/character of development in the locality and the amenities of the occupiers of the dwelling at the rear.

Amenity and character of new dwelling

The size and layout of the proposed new dwelling is considered to be acceptable. The internal arrangement of rooms between the existing and proposed dwellings would contribute to the avoidance of noise conflict, and further safeguards can be secured through a scheme of sound insulation (condition suggested). Although it is likely that there would be additional activity on the site, particularly by reason of vehicular movements and use of the rear amenity space, it is not considered that the increase on this corner plot would be so great as to be detrimental to neighbouring occupiers’ amenity. Continued/…..

166 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/27 – P/134/04/DFU continued/….

As single family accommodation it is appropriate that both the existing and proposed dwellings have gardens, and the amount/location of this provision is considered to be acceptable having regard to the character of development in the wider locality.

The retention of space to the side of the proposed dwelling would allow refuse storage to take place at the rear. The existing dwelling would lose this advantage but with the implementation of an appropriate scheme for refuse storage on the forecourt (condition suggested) such an arrangement is not considered to be unacceptable.

3. Parking and access To comply with the parking standards of the adopted UDP, there should be a combined minimum provision of 4 spaces on the site for the existing and proposed dwellings. This reverts to a maximum figure of 4 spaces in respect of the proposed modifications to the emerging replacement UDP.

The existing dwelling has two off-street spaces (one garaged), representing a deficiency of one space below the adopted UDP’s minima.

The proposed arrangements indicate that three spaces could be satisfactorily accommodated on the forecourt. A further single space at the rear of the proposed house with access from Amnersh Grove has been revised out of the scheme, to allow a street tree to be retained. Nonetheless, having regard to central Government advice it is not considered that the a refusal on the basis of a shortfall of one space below the minimum standard is sufficient to justify or sustain a parking reason for refusal.

The subject proposal differs from that of the previously refused scheme by the omission of an additional crossover onto Crowshott Avenue. Accordingly it is considered that the previous reason for refusal no. 2 has been overcome. Although some additional vehicle movements onto Crowshott Avenue are inevitable, the applicant has revised the scheme at officers’ request to re-site the existing crossover further away from the junction with Anmersh Grove, thereby securing a highway safety improvement upon the existing arrangement. In these circumstances and as the proposal is for a single family dwelling, it is not considered that additional vehicular activity from the site onto Crowshott Avenue would be so significant as to present a potential danger to pedestrian or vehicular safety.

Revisions to the subject proposal have also sought to limit the extent of the increase in the level of forecourt hardsurfacing. Subject to a scheme of soft landscaping of the remaining area, in the interests of amenity, and the closure of the existing crossover in the interests of highway safety, this arrangement is considered to be acceptable.

The omission from the scheme of the parking space at the rear and the gap now provided between the flank walls of the extensions and the boundary are such as to allow the existing street trees in Amnersh Grove to be retained. Accordingly it is considered that previous reason for refusal no. 3 has been overcome. Continued/…..

167 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/27 – P/134/04/DFU continued/….

3. Consultation Responses • should have garages: the provision of surface parking is considered to be acceptable. All other matters as set out above.

CONCLUSION For all of the reasons considered above and weighing up the development plan policies and proposals, and other material considerations, including any comments received in response to publicity and consultation as set out above, this application is recommended for grant.

168 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/28 70 MARLBOROUGH HILL, HARROW P/445/04/DFU/PDB Ward: MARLBOROUGH

CONVERSION OF DWELLINGHOUSE TO FIVE SELF CONTAINED FLATS (RESIDENT PERMIT RESTRICTED)

JAMES RUSH ASSOCIATES for MR & MRS PANESAR

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 0164.1; 0164.2 Rev A; site plan.

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Noise - Insulation of Building(s) - 4 3 Refuse Arrangements - Use

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 3 Standard Informative 33 – Residents Parking Permits 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E30 Streetside Greenness and Forecourt Greenery E45 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Residential Development E51 Noise Nuisance H10 Conversions T13 Car Parking Standards Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: S1 Form of Development and Pattern of Land Use SD1 Quality of Design EP25 Noise D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development - Amenity Space and Privacy D9 Streetside Greenness and Forecourt Greenery H10 Conversions of Houses and Other Buildings to Flats T13 Parking Standards

Continued/…..

169 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/28 - P/445/04/DFU continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1. Amenity and character (E6, E45, E51, H10) (SD1, D4, D5, EP25, H10) 2. Parking and access (E30, T13) (D9, T13) 3. Consultation responses

INFORMATION

Details of this application are reported to the Committee at the request of a Nominated Member. a) Summary

Car Parking: Standard: 7 (7) Justified: 0 (0) Provided: 0 (0) Council Interest: None b) Site Description • two storey semi-detached Edwardian dwelling with rear dormer on the south side of Marlborough Hill, Harrow • property has net floor area of 215m2 and a rear garden area (with access around the side) of 210m2 • forecourt soft landscaped; no off-street parking • on-street parking resident permit controlled c) Proposal Details • conversion of dwelling to five self contained flats: two each on the first and second floors and one in the roofspace • 4 x two habitable rooms and 1 x three habitable rooms d) Relevant History

Application Property

EAST/125/01/CLP Certificate Of Lawful Proposed Dev: Rear Dormer GRANTED 14-MAR-01

No. 61 Marlborough Hill

P/1343/03/DFU Conversion of First/Second Floor Flat to Two GRANTED Self-Contained Flats (Resident Permit Restricted) 06-AUG-03

Continued/…..

170 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 2/28 - P/445/04/DFU continued….. e) Applicant’s Statement

• Increased demand in Harrow for housing, particularly smaller units, and likely to grow in forthcoming years. • Harrow’s key housing objective is to provide higher density housing in locations with good access to public transport and town centres – such as this. • Reduced reliance on car use also sought. Would be suitable for key workers or first time buyers. • Proposal meets local policies and external changes minimised. • All period features to be maintained and room sizes larger than average.

f) Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 11 2 19-MAR-04

Summary of Responses: Nos. 60-74 all connected to one 4” sewer connection – will further overload drainage; width of conservatory wall shown incorrect; property currently rented out to students; three cars cannot be parked on the front; noise/will not be sound insulated; will exceed 25% of conversions; unsuitable size, circulation and layout; inadequate amenity space/access to; formation of off-street parking would lose on-street bays; unsatisfactory living space; five flats too many (two flats more suitable); flats too small (and flat 1 a fire hazard, flat 5 inadequate headroom).

APPRAISAL

1. Amenity and character For the purposes of applying Policy H10, it is considered that the whole of Marlborough Hill is unreasonably long to be assessed as a single entity. The junctions with Barons’ Mead and Milton Road form a convenient break in frontage that separate the subject part of the road from the Civic Centre complex and Churchill Court flats to the east. To the west, the junctions with Queens’ Park and Rusland Park Road form an appropriate break in frontage, beyond which the character of residential development in the road changes to one of smaller, 1930s semi-detached dwellings, two storey maisonettes and purpose built flat blocks. In accordance with Council’s methodology for applying the policy, therefore, it is considered that the stretch of development between these junctions – comprising of predominantly larger, Edwardian semi-detached property - can be assessed on its own (nos. 9-65 odds and nos. 42-90 evens included).

It is calculated that the proportion of non-single family dwellinghouses in the identified part of the road (flat conversions, one hotel and one community use) would be increased from 50.9% to 52.8%. However, in his assessment of the 25% ceiling set out in the replacement Policy H10, the Inquiry Inspector reported that he considered such a limit to be arbitrary and unjustified, and should be removed. The Council’s proposed modifications to the replacement UDP, which went on deposit from 29th January this year, accept the Inspector’s recommendation by removing the threshold criterion. A refusal on this basis is not, therefore, recommended. Continued/…..

171 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/28 - P/445/04/DFU continued…..

It remains, therefore, to consider the suitability of the conversion in the location proposed. The proportion of conversions that have already taken place in this part of Marlborough Hill is a reflection both of the size and proportions of the original buildings and the proximity of the road to Harrow & Wealdstone station/associated local bus links. It is unlikely that refusal would secure occupation of the property by a single family and, consequently, managing the increased occupation of the property through a conversion to small flats in this highly sustainable location is considered to be both appropriate and desirable.

As one and two bedroom units, likely to be occupied by single persons or young couples, the size of the proposed units is considered to be acceptable. Although the circulation of part of the loft-flat would be part limited by headroom, it is considered that there is sufficient space with the existing dormer to also make this aspect acceptable. Revisions are sought to the ‘stacking’ of the rooms within the building to secure acceptable vertical alignment of bedrooms and living rooms, in the interests of the living conditions of future occupiers.

To supplement good vertical layout and to safeguard against detriment to the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling, it is recommended that permission be conditional upon the agreement and implementation of a scheme of sound insulation.

The provision of rear garden space exceeds the minimum combined requirement of 180m2 in respect of the Council’s supplementary planning guidelines for residential development. Such a level of provision is considered to be acceptable and would secure adequate living conditions for future occupiers of the flats – all of whom would have access via the side passageway. It is recognised that the intensity of the use of the rear garden area would change as a result of the proposal, but it is considered unlikely that the resulting increase in noise and disturbance would be so significant as to be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers.

The entrances to the flats would all be internal, with the existing front door to the dwelling retained. In this circumstance and subject to conditional control of refuse storage arrangements, it is not considered that there would be any detriment to the visual amenity of the streetscene.

2. Parking and access

The application drawing originally submitted had proposed three parking spaces on the forecourt. However this would involve the hardsurfacing of the forecourt, which presently makes a positive contribution (with others) to the character of this part of Marlborough Hill.

Continued/…..

172 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/28 - P/445/04/DFU continued…..

Given the significant accessibility advantages of the locality and the potential - by reason of the presence of on-street parking controls and the likely occupiers of the proposed flats – to secure a ‘car –free’ development, it is considered preferable to retain the existing forecourt than to attempt to secure off-street parking.

Subject to resident permit restriction, it is not considered that the proposal would lead to unacceptable highways or amenity conditions by reason of additional on-street parking. Neither, in this location, would the proposed arrangement lead to circumstances disadvantageous to future occupiers of the proposed flats.

3. Consultation Responses

• 60-74 all connected to one 4” sewer connection: building control matter • width of conservatory wall shown incorrect: immaterial to the application • property currently rented out to students: noted • five flats too many (two flats more suitable): it is not considered that the proposal would result in an over-intensive occupation of this large property All other matters as dealt with in the main report.

173 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/29 78 & 80 MARLBOROUGH HILL, HARROW P/140/04/CFU/TEM Ward: MARLBOROUGH

CONVERSION OF HOTEL AND HOUSE IN 2 FLATS TO PROVIDE 7 FLATS WITH SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, 2 REAR DORMERS, PARKING (RESIDENT PERMIT RESTRICTED)

Eley & Associates for LUSTERPLACE LTD

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 1:1250 plan, 1185-10A, 11A, 20A, 21A, 22A, 23A, 24A, 25D

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Materials to Match 3 No development shall take place until a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed: a: before the use hereby permitted is commenced The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and the character of the locality. 4 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the car parking, turning and loading area(s) shown on the approved plan number(s) 1185-25D have been constructed and surfaced with impervious materials, and drained in accordance with details submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The car parking spaces shall be permanently marked out and used for no other purpose, at any time, without the written permission of the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory provision of parking areas, to safeguard the appearance of the locality and in the interests of highway safety. 5 Landscaping to be Approved 6 Landscaping to be Implemented

3 INFORMATIVE: The development hereby approved may be subject to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 which govern health and safety through all stages of a construction project. The Regulations require clients (ie those, including developers, who commission projects) to appoint a planning supervisor and principal contractor who are competent and adequately resourced to carry out their health and safety responsibilities. Clients have further obligations. Your designer will tell you about these and your planning supervisor can assist you in fulfilling them. Further information is available from the Health and Safety Executive Infoline on 0541 545500.

Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design D4 Standard of Design and Layout D5 New Residential Development – Amenity Space and Privacy D9 Streetside Greenness and Forecourt Greenery H10 Conversions T13 Car Parking Standards

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (REPLACEMENT UDP) 1. Scale of Development (E6, E45, H10) (SD1, D4, D5, H10) 2. Appearance and Character of Area (E6, E30, E45, H1) (SD1, D4, D5, D9) 3. Neighbouring Amenity (E45) (D4, D5) 4. Parking (T13) (T13) 5. Consultation Responses ______

continued/

175 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/29 - P/140/04/CFU continued.....

INFORMATION a) Summary

Car Parking Standard: 11 (10) Justified: See report Provided: 2 Site Area: 725m2 Habitable Rooms: 21 No of Residential Units: 7 Density : 96dph 289hrph Council Interest None. b) Site Description • south side of Marlborough Hill near junction with Queens Walk • site originally occupied by pair of semi-detached houses • no.78 converted to hotel with 2-storey side and single-storey rear extension, and rear dormer window • front garden largely hardsurfaced for parking • low wall with high leylandii hedge along most of front garden • no.80 converted to 2 flats with single-storey rear extension • front garden mostly planted, low wall along front garden • site within Controlled Parking Zone with Resident Permit spaces • Day Centre adjacent to No.78, house next to No.80. c) Proposal Details • conversion of premises to provide 7 flats • 3 x 2-bed x 3 habitable room units on ground and first floors • 1 x 2-bed x 3 habitable room flat in roofpsace • single-storey infill rear extension and 2 rear dormer windows proposed to No.80 • external alterations proposed to No.78 involving relocated front door, deleted garage door and new fenestration • front garden of No.80 retained as existing planted area • most of existing hardsurfaced front garden of No.78 planted up with 2 parking spaces • resident permit restricted

continued/

176 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/29 - P/140/04/CFU continued.....

d) Relevant History

No.78

LBH/28958 Rear dormer, single storey rear, two storey side GRANTED extension and change of use to Guest House 12-DEC-85 with car parking

LBH/34037 Use of two existing rooms as additional guest REFUSED bedrooms for use in conjunction with existing 22-DEC-87 hotel

Reasons for Refusal: The proposal would represent over intensive use of the site and sufficient on-site parking could not be provided to meet the Council standards

No.80

LBH/42844 Conversion of house currently used as 2 flats to REFUSED guest house use, extension to no.78 with parking 29-MAY-91 at front

Reasons for Refusal: 1. The site is incapable of acceptably providing sufficient car parking spaces for the use proposed and could result in car parking taking place beyond the site to the detriment of highway safety and convenience and to the detriment of residential amenity. 2. The proposal would result in the loss of 2 existing flats and would be contrary to the Council’s aim of maintaining the Borough’s stock of small dwelling units as set out in Policy O of the Council’s Interim Development Control Policies.

LBH/43652 Conversion of house currently used as 2 flats to REFUSED guest house use with parking at front (revised) 25-NOV-91

continued/

177 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/29 - P/140/04/CFU continued.....

APPEAL/7/94/ENF Without planning permission : Change of use Appeal from 2 flats to a house in Multiple Occupation Dismissed 21-APR-95

P/2525/03/DFU Conversion of hotel and house in 2 flats to 9 flats, WITHDRAWN single storey rear extension, two rear dormers 02-DEC-03 and forecourt parking. e)

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 37 2 18-MAR-2004

Response: Insufficient on-site parking, on-street parking, loss of front garden of No.80 detrimental to visual amenity, noise from forecourt parking, overlooking from new dormers, inadequate drainage, no objection to principle of conversion, too many flats proposed.

APPRAISAL 1. Scale of Development Both properties involved in this application have not been used as single-family dwellinghouses for many years, and the hotel use of No.78 has the potential to give rise to unacceptable levels of activity. The proposed use of the property as flats would be more appropriate within this residential area.

A satisfactory layout of accommodation is shown, with a rear garden area of over 400m2 demonstrating an acceptable scale of proposed development.

2. Appearance and Character of Area The two properties would retain the appearance of single-family dwellinghouses, in keeping with the general character of the area.

The proposed dormer windows and rear extension comply with guidelines.

The proposed provision of new planting across most of the front garden of No.78, which was originally shown together with the front garden of No.80 was originally proposed to be entirely hardsurfaced would benefit the appearance of the area.

3. Neighbouring Amenity The proposed rear extension and dormer windows would provide acceptable impacts on neighbouring properties. Given their current lawful uses it is considered that the proposed scale of development would not be detrimental to neighbouring amenities.

continued/

178 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/29 - P/140/04/CFU continued.....

4. Parking The proposed two front garden spaces would permit parking by disabled badge holders and service vehicles. As the scheme is Resident Permit Restricted by virtue of its location within a Controlled Parking Zone, the level of provision can be accepted.

5. Consultation Responses • Inadequate drainage – dealt with by other legislation • Other issues discussed in report.

Conclusion For all the reasons considered above, and weighing up the development plan policies and proposals, and other material considerations, including any comments received in response to publicity and consultation, as set out above, this application is recommended for grant.

179 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/30 517 PINNER RD, HARROW P/18/04/CFU/JH Ward: HEADSTONE NORTH

CHANGE OF USE:RETAIL TO FAST-FOOD TAKEAWAY(CLASS A1-A3) ON GROUND FLOOR WITH EXTRACTOR DUCT AT REAR.

MR R RAICHURA

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: R/2003/01, R/2003/02, OS Plan

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

1 Time Limit - Full Permission 2 Fume Extraction - External Appearance - Use 3 Noise from Music and Amplified Sound 4 Noise and Odour/Fume from Plant and Machinery 5 Restrict Hours on A3 Uses 6 Restrict Storage to Buildings 7 Shop Window Display 8 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for:- (a) The storage and disposal of refuse/waste (b) and vehicular access thereto has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The use hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To ensure adequate standards of hygiene and refuse/waste collection without prejudice to the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties.

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 21 - Bottle Recycling 2 Standard Informative 23 - Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 3 Standard Informative 27 - Access for All 4 Standard Informative 32 - The Party Wall etc Act 1996

Continued/…

180 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/30 - P/18/04/CFU continued.….

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1) Retail Policy (S5, S14), (EM18) 2) Neighbouring Amenity (E51), (EP25, EM26) 3) Accessibility (A4), (C20) 4) Parking (T13), (T13) 5) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Town Centre North Harrow Car Parking Standard: 3 (1) Justified: 1 (1) Provided: 0 (0) Site Area: 80.36m2 Floorspace: 62.89m2 Council Interest: None

Continued/…

181 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/30 - P/18/04/CFU continued.….

b) Site Description • Located on the western side of Pinner Road opposite two storey semi-detached properties; • Residential properties located to the rear with frontage to Woodlands; • Occupied by ground-floor retail unit (Stationers shop) with two floors of residential accommodation above; • Site located within secondary frontage of North Harrow District Centre in parade 493 – 539 Pinner Road. Starting at No.493 existing uses are as follows: Car showroom (SG), Restaurant/Takeaways (A3), Dry Cleaners (A1), Bed shop (A1), Chemist (A1), Bicycle shop (A1), Beautician (A1), Electrical shop (A1), Stationers shop (A1, Subject Site), Carpet shop storage (A1), Carpet shop (A1), Café (A3), Takeaway (A3), Car parts (A1) Takeaway (A3), Car stereo shop (A1), Carpet shop (A1), (12 x A1; 4 x A3; 1 x SG) c) Proposal Details • Change of use from a Stationers (A1) to a Takeaway Shop (A3) on ground floor with extractor duct at rear; • There are no significant external alterations proposed to the shop other than an extractor duct to the rear. This would be taken above roof level and the point of discharge would be at least 1.0m from any window opening; • Internal arrangements would be changed to provide a kitchen and customer service area; • The application does not provide hours of operation, staff numbers, proposed signage or additional parking.

d) Relevant Planning History

LBH/2182/4 Installation of New Shop Front GRANTED 05-MAY-1978 e) Consultations – EAO - awaited Harrow Chamber of Commerce - awaited

Notification Sent Replies Expiry 25 02 26-FEB-04

Summary of Responses: Already have 4 fast food outlets within parade, which give a rundown appearance; additional odour contribution; A3 uses replacing retailers kill off daytime trade and reduce the area’s future as a shopping centre; acceptable proportion of this type of retail outlet will be exceeded to the detriment of the regeneration of the North Harrow shopping centre.

Continued/…

182 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/30 - P/18/04/CFU continued.….

APPRAISAL

1) Retail Policy Policy S14 of the Adopted UDP and EM18 of the Draft Deposit UDP normally permit the change of use of retail shops to non-retail uses in secondary shopping frontages of District Centres providing the use is: • Appropriate to a town centre; • Primarily for visiting members of the public; • Requires an accessible location; • Length of secondary frontage in non-retail use in the centre would not exceed 50% of the total; • Premises can be adequately serviced without harm to highway safety and convenience; • Window display or appropriate shop frontage is maintained; and • A harmful concentration of non-retail uses is not created or added to.

The proposed change of use to A3 is appropriate to a town centre and is primarily for visiting members of the public and therefore requires an accessible location.

The existing percentage of non-retail frontage under the figures for the Adopted UDP is 43.25% and 42.08% for the Revised UDP. These figures would increase by up to 0.76% if the proposal were granted and would therefore not exceed 50% of the total length of secondary frontage in non-retail use.

The existing service arrangements would suffice without harm to highway safety and convenience and the existing shop frontage maintained.

The proposal would give rise to 11 x A1 uses and 6 x non-A1 uses in the designated parade. The proposed use would be located near the middle of the parade between two A1 units. Although A3 uses within the parade would tend to be located towards the northern end, this would not give rise to a harmful concentration of non-retail uses given the non-consecutive sequence of retail and non-retail units.

2) Neighbouring Amenity Conditions are suggested relating to noise, fume emissions and hours of use and subject to their imposition, the amenities of neighbouring residents would be protected.

3) Accessibility A condition and informative relating to access considerations is also included.

4) Parking In the revised Deposit Draft UDP the parking requirement for an A3 use is the same as for a retail unit. The subject property is an existing retail unit therefore the parking requirements would remain the same. A service road and parking spaces are available to the rear of the units, together with parking to the side of Pinner Road.

Continued/…

183 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 2/30 - P/18/04/CFU continued.….

5) Consultation Responses Addressed by report.

184 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

2/31 THE SALVATION ARMY, 15 ROXETH HILL, HARROW, P/386/04/CFU/TEM SALVATION ARMY CITADEL & HALL Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

PROVISION OF REPLACEMENT HALL BUILDING

ATP GROUP PARTNERSHIP for THE SALVATION ARMY TRUSTEE CO

2/32 THE SALVATION ARMY, 15 ROXETH HILL, HARROW, P/387/04/CCA/TEM SALVATION ARMY CITADEL & HALL Ward: HARROW ON THE HILL

CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT: DEMOLITION OF SALVATION ARMY HALL PREMISES.

ATP GROUP PARTNERSHIP for THE SALVATION ARMY TRUSTEE CO

P/386/04/CFU

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 02.451/04 Rev F, 05 Rev A, 100

GRANT permission in accordance with the development described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the following condition(s)

185 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/31 & 2/32 - P/386/04/CFU & P/387/04/CCA continued…..

4 No demolition or site works in connection with the development hereby permitted shall commence before:- (a) the frontage. (b) the boundary. of the site is enclosed by a close boarded fence to a minimum height of 2 metres. Such fencing shall remain until works and clearance have been completed, and the development is ready for occupation. REASON: In the interests of amenity and highway safety. 5 Completed Dev't - Conservation Area - Building 6 The window and doors in the western flank wall of the proposed development shall: (a) be of purpose-made obscure glass, (b) be permanently fixed closed below a height of 1.8m above finished floor level, and shall thereafter be retained in that form. REASON: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. 7 Highway - Approval of Access(es) 8 Landscaping to be Approved 9 Landscaping to be Implemented 10 Levels to be Approved 11 Noise Details - Buildings - Insulation - 1 12 Noise from Music and Amplified Sound 13 The use hereby permitted shall not commence until the car parking area(s) shown on the approved plan number(s) 02.451/05A have been constructed and surfaced with impervious materials, and drained in accordance with details submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The car parking spaces shall be permanently marked out and used for no other purpose, at any time, without the written permission of the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory provision of parking areas, to safeguard the appearance of the locality and in the interests of highway safety. 14 The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme for:- (a) The storage and disposal of refuse/waste (b) and vehicular access thereto has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied or used until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. REASON: To ensure adequate standards of hygiene and refuse/waste collection without prejudice to the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties. 15 Water Storage Works 16 The use of the building hereby approved shall only be operated in accordance with the submitted Weekly Programme of Activities. There shall be no change to this programme without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority:REASON: To prevent overintensive use of the site. 17 The open courtyard behind the main hall shall be used for escape purposes only in the event of emergencies, and shall not be used for outdoor play or social gatherings. The doors giving access to the courtyard shall be left closed at all times, apart from emergencies. REASON: To preserve neighbouring amenity. Continued/…..

186 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/31 & 2/32 - P/386/04/CFU & P/387/04/CCA continued…..

18 Noise and Odour/Fume from Plant and Machinery 19 Disabled Access - Buildings

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 30 – Thames Water Utilities 1 3 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 4 Standard Informative 35 – CDM Regulations 1994 5 Standard Informative 36 – Measurements from Submitted Plans 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 Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E6 High Standard of Design E8 Areas of Special Character E38 Conservation Areas - Character E46 Quality of Development - Design and Layout of Non-Residential Development E51 Noise Nuisance E58 Development Within Areas at Risk from Sewerage Flooding C1 Community Services Provision C11 Community Halls and Places of Worship T13 Car Parking Standards A4 People with Disabilities - Parking and External Access Needs Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SD1 Quality of Design SC1 Provision of Community Services EP13 Control of Surface Water Run-Off EP25 Noise EP31 Areas of Special Character D4 Standard of Design and Layout D16 Conservation Areas D17 Extensions and Alterations in Conservation Areas C14 Community Buildings and Places of Worship C21 Access to Leisure, Recreation, Community and Retail Facilities T13 Parking Standards

Continued/…..

187 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/31 & 2/32 - P/386/04/CFU & P/387/04/CCA continued…..

P/387/04/CCA

Plan Nos: 02/451/06, 07, 08

GRANT conservation area consent in accordance with the works described in the application and submitted plans, subject to the

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 23 – Considerate Contractor Code of Practice 2 Standard Informative 32 – The Party Wall etc Act 1996 INFORMATIVE SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANT OF LISTED BUILDING CONSENT OR CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT: The decision to grant Listed Building or Conservation Area Consent has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: E38 Conservation Areas - Character Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan: D16 Conservation Areas

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS

1) Demolition in Conservation Area (E38) (D16) 2) Community Services (C1, C11) (SC1, C14) 3) Appearance and Character of Conservation Area and Area of Special Character (E6, E8, E38, E46) (SD1, EP31, D4, D16, D17) 4) Residential Amenity (E46) (D4) 5) Accessibility (A4) (C21) 6) Parking (T13) (T13) 7) Consultation Responses

Continued/…..

188 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/31 & 2/32 - P/386/04/CFU & P/387/04/CCA continued…..

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character Conservation Area: Roxeth Hill Car Parking Standard: 29 - 58 (No standard) Justified: See report Provided: 8 Site Area: 0.1 ha Floorspace: 464m2 Council Interest: None b) Site Description

• north side of Roxeth Hill, 25m from junction with Middle Road/Lower Road/Northolt Road • within Roxeth Hill Conservation Area and Harrow-on-the-Hill Area of Special Character • occupied by Salvation Army Hall, mainly 2-storeys in height with single-storey elements • original building at western end of site, built early 1900’s, red brick with citadel features at front, 2-storeys in height, extended in 1960’s on eastern side, 2 floors of accommodation • capacity of main hall 310 people • vehicle access along eastern edge of site, 5 parking spaces at rear • locally listed Half Moon Public House to west, outbuilding of which butts up to existing Hall • rear boundaries of houses in Middle Road together with Half Moon car park also adjacent to western/north-western boundary • locally listed house at ‘Vine Cottage’, 17 Roxeth Hill adjacent to most of eastern boundary • 3-storey block of flats, Kymes Court and house on opposite side of Roxeth Hill • site levels fall by about 4m from east to west across Roxeth Hill frontage and rise by over 1.5m from front to rear c) Proposal Details

• demolition of all existing buildings on the site, for which Conservation Area Consent sought • development of replacement Salvation Army Hall • one floor of accommodation proposed in building with eaves height of 3m at eastern end rising to 5m at western edge due to fall in levels in Roxeth Hill • subordinate hipped roof over eastern part which wraps around rear of building, higher ridge line with half-hipped ends over main part of building containing hall at western end; 2 dormer features in front elevation Continued/…..

189 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/31 & 2/32 - P/386/04/CFU & P/387/04/CCA continued…..

• western flank wall 2m from boundary with Half Moon Public House • 5m wide drive at eastern side, projecting to rear car park containing 8 spaces, 4 double banked • building would contain main hall, (capacity 254 people) secondary hall which could be subdivided, office and ancillary accommodation • brick elevations with plinth in contrasting brick, tiled roof, raised feature brick course around building, 2 front brick panels d) Relevant History

HAR/13269 Erect hall GRANTED 12-NOV--57

HAR/4165/1 Alterations and rear extensions GRANTED 30-OCT-69

P/1302/03/CFU Provision of Replacement Hall Building REFUSED 17-OCT-03

Reason for Refusal:-

The design of the proposed building by reason of its bulk and appearance would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area within an Area of Special Character and would be visually obtrusive and incongruous in the streetscene.

Appeal lodged: 06-JAN-04 Hearing: 17-AUG-04

P/1303/03/CFU Conservation Area Consent: Demolition of REFUSED Salvation Army Hall Premises 17-OCT-03

Reason for Refusal:-

The proposed demolition, in the absence of an acceptable proposal for the replacement of the building, would be inappropriate and detrimental to the appearance and character of this part of the Conservation Area.

Appeal lodged: 07-JAN-04 Hearing: 17-AUG-04 f) Applicant’s Statement

• current building lacks basic standards of modern day Salvation Army Hall, viz • full access for elderly and disabled people due to multiple level changes • structural failure resulting in need to invest in repairs and damp proofing works • noise nuisance to neighbours due to poor sound insulation • very high manning costs due to dated construction Continued/…..

190 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/31 & 2/32 - P/386/04/CFU & P/387/04/CCA continued…..

• muddled internal room relationships leading to difficulty in operating activity programme • decision to demolish and rebuild not taken lightly • supporting statement setting out case for demolition with contributions from structural engineer, historic buildings consultants, and cost and project management consultants • not feasible financially to retain façade of original building, appearance not conducive to encouraging people to enter • proposed building designed to reflect community nature and civic importance • traditional architecture with contemporary detailed elements • scale of building sympathetic to neighbouring properties and considerably smaller in plan than existing building • within building all rooms on single level served by single foyer, achieving good access • thermal and acoustic insulation standards would lead to reduced nuisance and running costs • large windows and glazed foyer area would lead to transparency, activity within can be viewed from street • large gables now replaced by pair of gable windows which line through with ground floor windows • horizontally achieved and verticality maintained by window arrangement • roof over entrance area set back and separated from main roof form enabling worship hall to be articulated • bulk of roof form minimised by half-hipped ends • schedule of existing and additional anticipated future activities supplied, as follows:-

Day of Week Current Activities July Anticipated Notes 2003 Additional Facilities Sunday • Morning worship 10.30 None anticipated Hall opens at 9.30 • Primary Group meets Hall closes by 21.00 • Children’s programme • Coffee Fellowship after morning worship • Sunday School 12.00 • Evening Worship 17.30 • Coffee fellowship after evening worship

Daily • Admin office is open • Drop In Centre Activities most days • After School Club

Continued/…..

191 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/31 & 2/32 - P/386/04/CFU & P/387/04/CCA continued…..

Monday • Hall Open for Prayer all • ‘Listening Ear’ Day Day counselling and • Usual day for business advice programme meetings (occasional) • All age sport and Evening 7.00 – 9.30 recreational activities

Tuesday • Music Tots – Supervised • Men’s Fellowship * Circa 25 children Parent Toddler Group* group plus their • Parenting Courses parents/carers • Alpha Programme * Recovery • Drivers SEAT* programme for drivers with past alcohol problems

Wednesday • Morning fellowship group • ‘Listening Ear’ Day (Prayer and Bible Study) counselling and • Afternoon meeting of advice programme Ladies Group • All age sport and Evening 7.00 – 9.30 • Evening meeting for recreational prayer and bible study activities

Thursday • Evening music • Additional Our parent toddler rehearsals – children Supervised Parent group is popular and adult groups Toddler Group within the • Youth Group community

Friday • Occasional social events • ‘Listening Ear’ Day counselling and advice programme • All age sport and Evening 7.00 – 9.30 recreational activities

Saturday • Conferences • Occasional fund • Social events (for raising events members and friends)

• management plan supplied giving details of activities during construction period

Continued/…..

192 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/31 & 2/32 - P/386/04/CFU & P/387/04/CCA continued…..

P/386/04/CFU g) Consultations

CAAC: This is an improvement on the previous scheme but a gabled roof would be more in keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area. The plinth is also still too high and creates a dead elevation on the street.

Environment Agency: No comments Thames Water Utilities Ltd: Informative suggested

Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 01-APR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 34 0 23-MAR-04

P/387/04/CCA

Consultations

CAAC: A suitable replacement scheme has not yet been achieved.

Advertisement Demolition in Conservation Area Expiry 01-APR-04

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 34 0 23-MAR-04

APPRAISAL

1) Demolition in Conservation Area

The 1960’s part of the building is not considered to make a positive contribution to the character of the area. However, the frontage of the original Edwardian structure is quite a dominant building with its citadel style, large name plate and siting directly on the street. It grabs attention and acts as a landmark. It also relates in terms of materials and institutional use to other local buildings such as the former Hospital, the Nurses Hostel and the School. It is therefore considered to contribute to the character of the area and its demolition should therefore be assessed against the suggested criteria in PPG15.

Continued/…..

193 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/31 & 2/32 - P/386/04/CFU & P/387/04/CCA continued…..

These criteria are: • The condition of the building and the cost of repairing it and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use • Adequacy of the efforts made to continue the use of the building • Merits of alternative proposals for the site

The original Edwardian building comprises the front castellated façade with a much altered hall behind, and further attached extensions. The condition of the hall and extensions are poor with damp ingress and structural problems. A key part of the scheme is the desire to create a level accessible building and this could not be achieved by adapting the existing buildings because there are significant level changes. The areas to the rear have little intrinsic merit and so it is the façade itself which is considered of prime importance.

The façade needs basic repairs such as repointing and decoration of the window frames. The parapet also needs to be rebuilt as the façade is leaning out towards the pavement. It would be possible therefore to repair and retain the façade but the applicants argue that the cost of retaining the façade itself, combined with the repair costs are prohibitive. Façade retention and the necessary repairs would cost in the region of £66,000 which would include supporting the façade whilst the rest of the building was demolished, tying it into the new build, and traffic management costs for closing the pavement plus associated additional costs for the new build. This would have to be added to the cost of the demolition of the rest of the buildings on the site and for the new build behind. The Salvation Army have costed their preferred new build scheme at £944,000 but only have £850,000 and so already have a shortfall of £94,000 and the additional costs of retention would therefore make the whole scheme unviable.

In terms of the efforts made to continue the use of the building, the Salvation Army cannot make their building accessible to all with the current buildings. Demolition is therefore essential for the site to continue in community use. In addition, the Salvation Army are keen to lose the citadel style frontage because they want to present a more inclusive and welcoming image to the street than the existing building which is more forbidding in appearance.

The merits of the replacement proposal are also key in deciding whether demolition is appropriate.

2) Community Services

Both adopted policy C11 and Replacement Deposit policy SC1 commit the Council to seeking appropriate community facilities in the Borough. Deposit policy C14 sets down a list of criteria against which proposals for new facilities should be assessed, and these are discussed below. Continued/…..

194 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/31 & 2/32 - P/386/04/CFU & P/387/04/CCA continued…..

3) Appearance and Character of Conservation Area and Area of Special Character

The size of the proposed building is almost identical to the one refused planning permission, the only difference being that the gable element of the half hipped roof over the main hall has been increased in height by about 300mm. This would have a negligible impact in terms of additional bulk. The main difference between this scheme and the previous one is that the 2 prominent front gable features have been deleted. In their place is shown 2 brick panels which project some 200mm in front of the main front wall, with 2 triangular shaped dormer windows above. These would be less obtrusive then the previous gable features, but would nonetheless break up the front elevation. In addition, a raised feature brick course is proposed around the building to provide more profiling, horizontality and interest, as would the plinth in contrasting brick. It is considered that the proposed design is acceptable given the constraints imposed by the need both to provide level access throughout, the building on this sloping site, and also a sufficiently high ceiling height within the main hall.

The view of the western elevation across the car park in Middle Road would be a significant improvement on the existing unattractive, messy aspect which shows sheds, chimneys and a combination of rear walls of the original building and extensions.

Overall it is considered that the character of the Roxeth Hill Conservation Area would be enhanced by the proposals.

In terms of the Area of Special Character, it is considered that none of the structural features which contribute to the character of the Area would be harmed by the proposals.

4) Residential Amenity

It was accepted that the previous proposal would have a satisfactory impact on residential amenity. The minimal revision to the flank wall and roof treatment facing 1 and 3 Middle Road (which would not increase the overall height of the roof) would not be detrimental to neighbouring amenity.

Conditions are suggested regarding boundary treatment to prevent overlooking, use of the courtyard which would serve as an escape area, sound insulation to prevent the transmission of noise, and also in relation to the schedule of activities to control levels of activity on the site.

Continued/…..

195 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Items 2/31 & 2/32 - P/386/04/CFU & P/387/04/CCA continued…..

5) Accessibility

Unlike the existing facility, the proposed building would be fully accessible and this is considered to be a major advantage of the proposal. This necessarily results in the western end of the building being further out of the ground than the eastern end due to the fall in levels in Roxeth Hill. The relevant condition and informative are suggested.

6) Parking

This proposal involves a reduction in floorspace over the existing building which contains a first-floor element. In these circumstances, given the increase in provision from 5 to 9 spaces, the proximity of the site to public transport facilities and in the light of Government guidance, the proposed parking provision can be accepted.

7) Consultation Responses

Awaited.

196 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 SECTION 3 - OTHER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL

3/01 PINNER PARK FARM, 1 PINNER PARK FARM, PINNER P/2478/03/CFU/TW PARK, PINNER Ward: HEADSTONE NORTH

DEMOLITION OF DAIRY BUILDING AND PROVISION OF REPLACEMENT TWO STOREY STORAGE BUILDING AND ANCILLARY OFFICES

COTTERELL THOMAS & THOMAS for HALL & SONS DAIRY FARMERS LTD

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 03/466/03, 01/466/10, 01/466/01.

REFUSE permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans for the following reason(s):

1 The proposal, by reason of inappropriate appearance and design, would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Listed Building. 2 The proposal by reason of inappropriate appearance and design, would have a detrimental impact on the character of the Green Belt.

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 41 – UDP and Deposit Draft UDP Policies and Proposals : (E1, E2, E6, E10, E11, E34); (SEP6, EP33, D12)

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Setting of Listed Building (E6, E34) (D12) 2) Green Belt (E1, E2, E10, E11) (SEP6, EP33) 3) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Special Advert Cont Listed Building: Grade II Green Belt Floorspace: 750m2 Council Interest: None

Continued/…..

197 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/01 - P/2478/03/CFU continued….. b) Site Description

• Farm and associated buildings located in the north west of the Borough • The farm house and older buildings are Grade II Listed • The whole site is within the Green Belt • The building to be demolished appears to post-date 1948 and is therefore not listed c) Proposal Details

• Demolish the existing dairy building/cold store and construct a part 2 storey building measuring 45m in length and 15m in width • The building would have a height of 5.6m to the eaves and 7.55m to the ridge • The building would accommodate a range of offices, storage and maintenance uses • The building would be constructed of brick, render and profiled metal sheeting d) Relevant History

None. e) Advertisement Setting of Listed Building Expiry 22-DEC-03

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 1 2 22-DEC-03

Summary of Responses: Too large, out of character.

APPRAISAL

1) Setting of Listed Building

The existing building is considered to be of no intrinsic merit that could justify seeking its retention. However the proposed building would appear large, stark, and of unsympathetic materials and completely devoid of architectural merit. Notwithstanding the untidy nature of the site (which may or may not change as a result of the proposal), it is considered that the proposed building would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Listed Building.

2) Green Belt

The use of land/buildings for agricultural purposes are acceptable within the Green Belt. However it is considered that the building would harm the character of the area by reason of inappropriate appearance and materials.

Continued/…..

198 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/01 - P/2478/03/CFU continued…..

3) Consultation Responses

None.

199 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

21 WOODHALL DRIVE, PINNER 3/02 P/558/04/CFU/JH Ward: HATCH END

ALTERATIONS TO ROOF AND REAR DORMER

MR & MRS M FROHLICH for A DAVIES

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: OS Plan, MF/01/A

REFUSE permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans for the following reason(s):

1 The proposed roof alterations, by reason of non-symmetrical roof design and appearance, would detract from the character and appearance of the pair of semi- detached dwellings and Pinnerwood Park Estate Conservation Area.

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 41 – UDP and Deposit Draft UDP Policies and Proposals : (E5, E6, E38, E39, E45) (SD1, SD2, D4, D16, D17, D18) ______

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1. Appearance or Character of Conservation Area (E5, E6, E38, E39, E45) (SD1, SD2, D4, D16, D17, D18) 2. Residential Amenity (E45) (D4) 3. Consultation Responses

INFORMATION

Details of this application are reported to Committee at the request of a nominated Member. a) Summary

Conservation Area: Pinnerwood Park Estate Council Interest: None

Continued/…

200 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/02 – P/558/04/CFU continued….. b) Site Description • Two storey semi-detached dwelling on the western side of Woodhall Drive; • Site situated within the Pinnerwood Park Estate Conservation Area; • Single storey additions have been previously undertaken to the side and rear. c) Proposal Details • Loft conversion to provide a further bedroom with ensuite bathroom; • Proposal involves the extension of the roof hip to the side by 1.0m; • The ridge height would remain the same; • A small flat roofed dormer set in from the party wall, verge and away from the ridge and eaves is also proposed to the rear roof slope. d) Relevant History

WEST/236/96/CAC Demolition of attached garage GRANTED 08-JUL-1996 WEST/235/96 Single storey side and rear extensions GRANTED 08-JUL-1996 e) Applicant’s Statement Proposal has taken care to follow the conservation estate guidelines, being sympathetic with design to avoid a clumsy and unattractive new design. Believe plans to be unobtrusive and as symmetrical as possible with neighbouring properties, whilst allowing the interior to gain the necessary headroom for a new staircase. Original purpose of the conservation area was to keep original features and character of Artegan properties and due to the positioning of the 1930’s homes in Woodhall Drive these were also included. Hope that the decision will take into consideration that the subject property is not an Artegan property. Understand that symmetry is important in the conservation area. Neighbouring semi-detached property is no longer symmetrical due to differing ground floor extensions. Alterations differ in terms of roof design, finish and setback distances and are therefore no longer symmetrical. f) Consultations CAAC This is not an Artegan house but the proposed roof alteration would unbalance the roof and make the building out of symmetry with its neighbour and out of keeping with the rest of the street. The dormer is too close to the ridge and is incompatible with a building of this period and a velux would be better. Half hip roof element would also look strange. Does not preserve or enhance.

Advertisement Character of Conservation Area Expiry 08-APR-04

Continued/…

201 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/02 – P/558/04/CFU continued…..

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 5 2 29-MAR-04 Summary of Responses: Owner of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 23 Woodhall Drive - No objection to the proposal and subject to the approval of this scheme would propose the same alterations ensuring that the houses will have a symmetrical roof line/design. Letter of Support - Proposal changes to roof should not significantly imbalance its adjoining twin and little else will be visible from the road. Since No. 21 is not an Artegan property, there is less logic for stringency in adhering to Conservation rules. Believe it would be a shame if another young family were to move out of the area because permission to extend was refused on conservation grounds.

APPRAISAL

1) Appearance or Character of Conservation Area The proposed roof alterations would unbalance the original roof design of the pair of semi-detached dwellings resulting in an apparent loss of symmetry in the streetscene. The resulting impact would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings and this part of the Pinnerwood Park Estate Conservation Area.

2) Residential Amenity It is not envisaged there would be any impact on the residential amenity of adjoining properties.

3) Consultation Responses A joint application for the pair of semi-detached dwellings is more likely to achieve the purposes of the current application dependant on the design and impact on the Conservation Area.

202 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

3/03 87 STATION RD, NORTH HARROW P/156/04/CFU/JH Ward: HEADSTONE NORTH

CHANGE OF USE: RETAIL (CLASS A1) TO PIZZA TAKEAWAY (CLASS A3) WITH NEW SHOPFRONT AT FRONT AND SIDE AND EXTRACT DUCT AT REAR

MBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT for PERFECT PIZZA

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: Site Location Plan; A3 00/SE/HAR/A, A3 02/GA/HAR/C, A3 07/SD/HAR/A, A3 08/SE/HAR/A, A3 09/SP/HAR/C, A3 13/RE/HAR/A, A3 17/SS/HAR/C.

REFUSE permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans for the following reason(s):

1 Given the present highway and traffic conditions in Station Road and lack of roadside parking it is considered that the proposed change of use would result in illegal and injudicious parking, which would adversely impact on highway safety and movement.

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 41 – UDP and Deposit Draft UDP Policies and Proposals : (S5, S14, T13, E51, A4) (EM18, EM 26, EP25, T13, C20)

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Retail Policy (S5, S14), (EM18) 2) Parking (T13), (T13) 3) Residential Amenity (E51), (EP25, EM26) 4) Accessibility (A4), (C20) 5) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Town Centre North Harrow Car Parking Standard: 3 (2) Justified: 3 (3) Provided: 5 (5) 2 Floorspace: 137.5m Council Interest: None

Continued/…..

203 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/03 - P/156/04/CFU continued….. b) Site Description

• North-west corner of Station Road at the junction with Northumberland Road, Argyle Road and Imperial Drive; • Approximately 55m south-west of North Harrow station; • Ground floor A1 retail unit (vacant) located within secondary frontage of North Harrow in parade 73-87 Station Road. Starting at No.73 existing uses are as follows: Estate Agent (A2), Video Shop (A1), Restaurant (A3), Grocer (A1), Video Shop (A1), Grocer/ Off-licence (A1), Estate Agent (A2), Bathrooms (Proposal site A1); (5 x A1, 1 x A3, 2 x A2) • Two residential floors situated above the site; • Two-storey semi-detached dwellings located at rear and opposite corner on Imperial Drive. c) Proposal Details • Change existing vacant A1 shop to A3 Pizza Shop; • External alterations including new shop front and extractor to rear; • Approximately 15 part and full time staff proposed; d) Relevant Planning History

LBH/19832/W Change of use from office to shop, single storey rear GRANTED extension boundary wall. Parking space and shop front. 17-AUG-1981

LBH/23115 First floor rear extension REFUSED 26-MAY-1983

LBH/29651 Single storey and first floor rear extensions REFUSED 17-APR-1986

LBH/30417 Single storey and first floor extensions with parking GRANTED 22-JUL-1986 e) Applicant’s Statement

• Aim to facilitate the needs of the local residents, businesses, shoppers, local authority as well as neighbours to enhance the local choice offered. • Ensure that congestion on the highway and any loss of amenity to local residents and businesses are minimised by presence during hours of trade. • Research has been undertaken to prove the suitability of the location. • The site is within acceptable limits (< 50%) for non-retail frontage in the designated secondary parade. Continued/…..

204 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/03 - P/156/04/CFU continued…..

• Provide employment for approximately 15 part and full time staff. High quality shop fittings and equipment (including extractor). • Produce a high quality product and service to the local population, offices and other business within a 3-mile radius. • Approximately 80% of business is delivered which reduces customer car journeys to premises, parking and litter. f) Notification Sent Replies Expiry 12 6 24-FEB-04 Includes petition against proposal - 56 signatures

Summary of Responses: 1 response in favour of the proposal as it would add to the choice of food in the area. Objections – loss of amenity; litter, vermin and odour problems; there is a saturation of this type of shop in the area; delivery vehicles will cause noise and nuisance; increase in parking problems to rear service road resulting in further difficulties for vehicles leaving/ entering the site including residents; increase parking problems to surrounding roads; adversely impact on other small takeaway/ restaurants in the area; there is already severe competition in the area.

APPRAISAL

The proposed change of use to A3 is appropriate to a town centre and normally considered to be primarily for visiting members of the public and situated in an accessible location. Continued/…..

205 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/03 - P/156/04/CFU continued…..

The existing percentage of non-retail frontage under the figures for the Adopted UDP is 43.25% and 42.08% for the Revised UDP. These figures would increase by 0.80% if the proposal were granted and would therefore not exceed 50% of the total length of secondary frontage in non-retail use.

The existing service arrangements would suffice without harm to highway safety and convenience. A new shop frontage would be implemented and maintained accordingly.

The proposal would give rise to 4 x A1 uses and 4 x non-A1 uses in the designated parade. The proposed use would be located at the end of the parade adjoining an Estate Agents (A2). This would not give rise to a harmful concentration of non-retail uses given the position of other non-retail units in the parade.

2) Parking and Highway Considerations In the Revised UDP the parking requirement for an A3 use is the same as for a retail unit. However due to the nature of the proposed use there is concern that illegal and injudicious parking may result at the location to the detriment of highway safety. A bus stop is located to the front of the parade and there is no parking available to the front of the site on Station Road. The applicant has outlined 5 parking spaces to the rear of the premises but it is generally acknowledge that such spaces are only suitable for staff use. Notwithstanding this it is still considered that highway safety might be affected with regard to parking at the front of the site.

3) Residential Amenity Although there is residential accommodation above properties in the parade, were the proposal to be acceptable in other respects, conditions could be imposed to take account of noise and fume emissions and hours of use, in order to safeguard the amenities of the occupants.

4) Access Were the proposal to be acceptable in other respects, conditions could be imposed to take account of Access obligations.

5) Consultation Responses These have been largely addressed above. Competition between businesses is not a valid planning consideration.

206 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

3/04 162 PINNER ROAD, HARROW P/506/04/CFU/GM Ward: HEADSTONE SOUTH

CHANGE OF USE: CLASS A1 TO A3 (RETAIL TO FOOD AND DRINK) ON GROUND FLOOR, WITH EXTRACTOR AT REAR

CHRISTIAN BUXTON for MR RAO

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 00162/P/DP/01; 02

REFUSE permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans for the following reason(s):

1 Car parking cannot be satisfactorily provided within the site and the proposal would be likely to encourage illegal and injudicious parking on the neighbouring highways which would be detrimental to conditions of highway safety and the free flow of traffic. INFORMATIVE: 1 Standard Informative 41 – UDP & Deposit Draft UDP Policies & Proposals (E6, E46, E51, S16, T13, A4) ( SD1, D4, EP25, EM21, EM26, T13, C20)

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1) Retail Policy (S16) (EM21, EM26) 2) Parking and Highway Safety (T13) (T13) 3) Residential Amenity (E6, E46, E51) (SD1, D4, EP25) 4) Accessibility (A4) (C20) 5) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary Car Parking Standard: 16 (no additional) Justified: 11 (no additional) Provided: 0 CCA: 100m2 Council Interest: None b) Site Description • terraced retail unit on northern side of Pinner Road that wraps around the rear of no. 164 adjoining • occupied by vacant shop on the ground floor with 2 floors of residential accommodation over, accessed via separate front door continued/

207 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

Item 3/04 – P/506/04/CFU continued.....

• pedestrian walkway at rear which also abuts 1 Rutland Road, a terraced residential property • within non-designated retail parade 148-166 Pinner Road comprising 10 units in following uses (starting at no.148): vacant (authorised use A1), fruit and vegetable shop (A1), CD/DVD shop (A1), phone call shop/public call office (mixed A1/A2 use), grocers (A1, double unit), pharmacy (A1), application site (vacant, authorised use A1), estate agent (A2), car showroom (sui generis); 7 x A1, 1 x mixed A1/A2, 1 x A2, 1 x sui generis c) Proposal Details • change of use of ground floor from retail to hot food and drink (A1 to A3) • submitted plan indicates a restaurant use with a customer circulation area of 100m2 • extractor flue to be sited on single storey element of building at far rear of site d) Relevant History

WEST/227/95/FUL Change of Use: Class A1 to A3 (retail to REFUSED restaurant) on ground floor 18-SEP-96

Reason for Refusal: “Car parking cannot be satisfactorily provided within the curtilage of the site to meet the Council’s minimum requirements in respect of the development, and the likely increase in parking on the neighbouring highway(s) would be detrimental to the free flow and safety of traffic on the adjoining highway.” A subsequent Appeal was dismissed 18-SEP-96. e) Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 26 2 08-APR-04

Summary of Responses: Impossible to service from the rear; would add to existing parking problems in area; disturbance and noise nuisance from late night use; litter

APPRAISAL

1) Retail Policy The application site is located within a parade of shops which is not in a designated shopping area. Both adopted Policy S16 and replacement plan Policy EM21 state that changes of use from retail shops in such locations will normally be permitted if the proposal would not result in the loss of necessary local retail provision. In this case there is a preponderance of A1 uses within both this and the immediately adjacent retail parades. The site is also within walking distance of Harrow town centre. In terms of criterion (B) of Policy S16, the proposal would add to the vitality of the area, being a use that is more likely to extend into the evening.

continued/

208 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/04 – P/506/04/CFU continued.....

2) Parking and Highway Safety This area is characterised by heavy on-street parking, some of which is illegal and injudicious. In recognition of this, applications for A3 uses (including restaurants and takeaways) have been refused since 1995 at nos. 126, 140, 148, 150, 152 and 162 itself because of insufficient on-site parking. It is considered that this proposal would make the existing situation worse and aggravate the existing parking difficulties, especially as the customer circulation area would be relatively large. This is notwithstanding the replacement UDP parking standards requiring no additional parking for an A3 use compared to an A1 use. The issue is one of patterns of parking including length of stay and times of visit, particularly as the proposal does not exclude takeaway use.

3) Residential Amenity Whilst there is residential use above the unit this is a common arrangement in such retail parades. It is not considered that a situation harmful to residential amenity would necessarily arise from the scale of the proposals, and were the proposals otherwise acceptable, amenity could be protected by conditions relating to noise, fumes, hours of use and the type of A3 use.

4) Accessibility A planning condition and informative could be imposed to secure satisfactory access were the proposals otherwise acceptable.

5) Consultation Responses The issue of servicing would be the same whether the use was Class A1 or A3. Parking is addressed in the report. The parade is an appropriate location for an A3 use and conditions could be attached relating to hours of use and noise from the premises.

209 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

3/05 THE BARN, 27 WARREN LANE, STANMORE P/357/04/CFU/JH Ward: CANONS

SINGLE STOREY FRONT AND SIDE EXTENSIONS WITH ROOF EXTENSION AND SIDE DORMER

MR ASHOK CHANNA

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: OS Plan, AC/PA03/100A, AC/PA03/101A, AC/PA03/102A, AC/PA03/103A,

REFUSE permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans for the following reason(s):

1 Combined with previous additions to the dwelling, the proposal would give rise to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling, which would reduce the openness of the site and detract from the character of the Green Belt.

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 41 – UDP & Deposit Draft UDP Policies & Proposals ((E1, E2, (E4, E6, E8, E10, E11, E45); (SEP5, SEP6, SD1, EP32, EP33, EP34, D4)

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1) Green Belt Land and Area of Special Character (E1, E2, E4, E6, E8, E10, E11, E45), (SEP5, SEP6, SD1, EP32, EP33, EP34, D4). 2) Residential Amenity (E45), (D4) 3) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Area of Special Character Green Belt Site Area: 2230m2 Floorspace: 266.33m2 Council Interest: None

Continued/…

210 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/05 – P/357/04/CFU continued/… b) Site Description The site is located down a shared driveway with access to Warren Lane in Stanmore; • The subject property comprises a two-storey barn which has been converted to a three bedroom dwelling; • The dwelling has a number of varying floor heights and split levels; • The dwelling is situated within an area of special character and the Metropolitan Green Belt; • The surrounding area is open in nature with large plots surrounding dwellings; • Adjoining the property to the east is an area of open farmland. c) Proposal Details • The application proposes a large single storey extension to the north and west elevations of the dwelling to provide kitchen, dining, lounge and entrance areas at ground floor level; • A glazed roof is proposed above the bulk of the ground floor extensions; • The roof slope to the north elevation would be altered to a continuous pitch with a large dormer window added to provide a further bedroom at first floor level; • Window arrangements would be altered on several elevations; • A small infill extension is proposed to the west elevation to “straighten” the elevation and allow for the conversion of the existing dining area to a bedroom. d) Relevant History

HAR/4862 Convert barn for accommodation GRANTED 18-APR-1951

HAR/10730B Erect 2 detached houses/garages (outline) REFUSED 02-OCT-1964

LBH/5621 Alterations and additions to convert greenhouse REFUSED and outbuildings into dwelling house 12-OCT-1970

LBH/5621/1 Erection of additional bathroom on 1st floor, and GRANTED car park 25-APR-1973

LBH/5621/2 Erection of sun lounge and study on ground floor, GRANTED and new bathroom on first floor 07-JAN-1975

P/2188/03/CFU Single storey front and side extensions with roof WITHDRAWN extension including side dormer 30-JAN-2004

Continued/…

211 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/05 – P/357/04/CFU continued/… e) Applicant’s Statement

As confirmed by the planning officers site visit the existing building is unsuitable for a disabled/ wheelchair person as it has too many levels and small staircases. The property is not open and hence wheelchair unfriendly. Even the entrance to the house is hampered by two sets of steps. The design of the extension has been made in consultation with the Harrow Disability Care Management Services. It caters for my wife’s current and long- term health needs. i.e. Kitchen, Living room, Bedroom and toilet all need to be on the same floor.

The extension does not affect anyone and is not intruding into anyone’s space or privacy. The land still remains open and existing environmental character is maintained. Our architect has submitted the application taking into consideration the outbuildings as requested. We have no problem in omitting the garage from the scheme but would like to keep the out-building as it is essential for storage of garden machinery and other outdoor items. It is located at the bottom of our garden (about 70 metres away) and does not affect anything or anyone. After the extension over 88% of the land would remain green. This can hardly be classified as an over development considering the age of the original building and its very small size in relation to the plot.

Harrow Council Physical/Sensory Disability Care Management Services – K. Davis, Occupational Therapist. Re: Dr Tara Chaana – The Barn, The Grove, Warren Lane, Stanmore HA7 4LD This lady has a history of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis affecting all areas of daily living. She has severe pain and has had several fractures resulting in leg operations and bone graft. Her mobility is severely restricted. She walks slowly with crutches and is housebound and unable to get in and out of her property. She has great problems managing stairs and steps and is confined to the lounge during the day. She also has difficulty accessing the kitchen, downstairs WC and is unable to go upstairs during the day without assistance. The property is unsuitable to her needs and major adaptations are required to facilitate independent living. Dr Chaana has submitted plans to adapt her home with her own means and I confirm that she has access problems to all areas of her present home and would benefit greatly from having the bedroom, bathroom with level access shower, kitchen and lounge area all on one level. The present property is not wheelchair accessible as there are 2 sets of steps by the front door. I understand they have addressed this problem in their plan to make the property wheelchair accessible.

The North West London Hospitals – NHS Trust, Arthritis Centre - Dr C. Higgens – Consultant Rheumatologist. This lady has a fractured tibia and fibula, which is continuing to slowly re-unite. Her continuing rehabilitation is a slow process. Whilst she is trying to cope with her rehabilitation, her rheumatoid arthritis affects almost all her joints. She is now able to walk very slowly with a walking stick. She has had multiple drug therapy in the past, to all of which she has suffered intolerance and side effects from treatment. She continues to be monitored at Northwick Park Hospital on a regular basis. She is no longer fit to work and it is unlikely she will be able to resume work in the future because of her long-term problems. Continued/…

212 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/05 – P/357/04/CFU continued/…

The North West London Hospitals – NHS Trust, Adult Therapies & Rehabilitation Directorate – L. Kemp - Snr Occupational Therapist. Reiterates points outlined above. f) Consultations

Notification Sent Replies Expiry 03 0 18-MAR-04

APPRAISAL

1) Green Belt Land and Area of Special Character

Table showing the area and volume for the original, existing, and proposed dwelling.

Original Existing % Over Proposed % Over original original Footprint (m2) 111.27 170.87 + 53.56 248.28 + 123.1 Floor Area 160.75 266.33 + 65.7 347.60 + 116.23 (m2) Volume (m3) 620.07 821.26 + 32.44 1100.00 + 77.4

Plan policy requires that ‘development will be strictly controlled within the green belt to ensure that such land remains primarily open and existing environmental character is maintained or enhanced’ and in the case of extensions to dwellings, ‘not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling’.

The existing dwelling has already been substantially extended, resulting in an overall increase of 65% in floor area and 32% in volume. The proposal would increase these figures to 116% and 77% respectively. The footprint of the original building is also likely to be increased by up to 123%. Given the sizeable increases in area and volume proposed, the additions are considered disproportionate in terms of the size of the original dwelling.

Plan provisions also require that proposals be well designed in relation to the size and shape of the site and in particular that sufficient space within the site should remain around any structures to retain the spaciousness and character of the green belt. The existing footprint covers approximately 7.6% of the total site area and the proposal would increase this to 11.13%. This does not represent a particular overdevelopment of the site in terms of the size of the plot (2230m2), however, due to the shape of the plot and location of the dwelling to one end, the space around the dwelling would be reduced by the proposed extensions leading to a reduction in the openness of the site and character of this part of the greenbelt. Continued/…

213 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/05 – P/357/04/CFU continued/…

The area is characterised by large dwellings set in generous plots. The space around and between dwellings is generally open in accordance with the nature and character of the Green Belt.

2) Residential Amenity

Residential amenity would be largely unaffected by the proposal. Neighbours to the north and east are sufficiently removed and separated by large open areas. To the south and west is a large ‘L-shaped’ plot and a detached dwelling with a large brick wall approximately 2.2 - 2.4m in height. Any windows associated with the proposal are unlikely to result in any further overlooking than exists at present.

3) Personal Circumstances of the Applicant

Notwithstanding a sympathy for the applicant’s personal circumstances, in terms of planning the application cannot be supported given the adverse impact on the Green Belt that would arise.

4) Consultation Responses

None.

214 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

3/06 249C STATION RD, HARROW P/2883/03/CFU/GM Ward: GREENHILL

3 STOREY BUILDING TO PROVIDE 6 FLATS (REVISED)

ARP ASSOCIATES for MR CHOUDHRY

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: ARP/NP/01R1; 02R1

REFUSE permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans for the following reason(s):

1 The proposed development, by reason of its size, bulk and siting would be visually obtrusive and would give rise to a loss of light and outlook for adjoining occupiers to the detriment of their amenity. 2 The proposed development would give rise to overlooking and a loss of privacy for neighbouring residents and would itself be overlooked from adjoining properties with a resultant poor level of amenity for future occupiers. 3 The proposed siting of the building with habitable room windows facing service areas of adjacent buildings would result in an unsatisfactory level of amenity for future occupiers.

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 41 – UDP and Deposit Draft UDP Policies and Proposals : (E6, E45, H3, H8, T13) (SD1, SH1, SH2, EP21, D4, D5, T13)

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP) 1. Housing Policy (H3, H8) (SH1, SH2, EP21) 2. Visual and Residential Amenity (E6, E45) (SD1, D4, D5) 3. Parking (T13) (T13) 4. Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Town Centre Harrow Car Parking Standard: 8 (8) Justified: 8 (8) Provided: 0 Site Area: 0.02ha Habitable Rooms: 12 No of Residential Units: 6 Density: 585 hrph 293dph Continued/…..

215 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/06 – P/2883/03/CFU continued…..

UDP Proposal: Site 21 Draft Revised Deposit UDP: Proposal Site 1 Council Interest : None b) Site Description • irregular shaped site accessed off service road occupied by various single storey workshop buildings and storage area, now vacant • access to service road between 245 and 249 Station Road • northern boundary abuts service road and faces Greenhill Way car park, eastern boundary abuts access path to residential units and rear yards of 249-267(o) Station Road, southern boundary abuts rear of 269-271 Station Road, western boundary abuts service access to rear of 269-271 Station Road. c) Proposal Details • redevelopment to provide irregular-shaped three storey block of 6 x 1 bed flats • pitched roof over with rear elevation of building abutting rear of 269-271 Station Road • access off shared access path at rear of 249-267(o) Station Road • no parking • habitable rooms to north, east and west elevations d) Relevant History None. e) Consultations Thames Water Utilities Ltd: No objection

Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 48 1 13-APR-04

Summary of Responses: Strong objections, plot too small for such a large development; loss of light; would add to rubbish left in area; service road used by lorries making it unsuitable for entrance to flats.

APPRAISAL

1. Housing Policy The proposal would provide small units on a previously developed site in accordance with the Council’s housing policies. The density would be high but given the location within the town centre this in itself would not be obejctionable. There are concerns at the relationship with adjacent residential properties and the amenity of occupiers however, these would conflict with Policy SH1 of the revised deposit draft UDP and are addressed below.

Continued/…..

216 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/06 – P/2883/03/CFU continued…..

2. Visual and Residential Amenity The site is presently in a poor condition but is viewed against the backdrop of large buildings which front Station Road. The proposed building would be of an unusual and irregular-shape, designed to fit the boundaries of the site. It would lie close to the rear of existing residential properties above 249-267 Station Road and be obtrusive when viewed from them, blocking outlook and to a lesser degree (due to the orientation) light. The shared access path at the rear of 249-267 Station Road would be both overshadowed by the additional height of the building and yet made more secure by being overlooked from windows of the new development.

The amenities of future occupiers of the new building would be severely limited. Accessed via the service road and shared access path there would be little or no privacy particularly for ground floor residents. Habitable room windows would also face a service access to the rear of 269-271 Station road. At the upper levels habitable room windows would face those of the flats above 249-259 Station Road with overlooking between the two.

The lack of amenity space is not in itself considered objectionable given the town centre location and the proximity to other facilities.

3. Parking There would be a parking deficiency of 8 spaces for the proposal The site lies within the town centre where there are excellent public transport facilities and adjacent to a public car park however. The development could also be made ‘resident permit restricted’ if all other aspects of the proposal were considered to be acceptable. In these circumstances, it is not considered that a parking reason for refusal could be reasonably justified.

4. Consultation Responses These are addressed in the report.

217 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

3/07 9 WEST DRIVE GARDENS, HARROW P/424/04/DFU/PDB Ward: HARROW WEALD

RETENTION OF, AND MODIFICATIONS TO, ROOF EXTENSION AT SIDE, REAR & FRONT AND FRONT AND REAR DORMERS

JPB ARCHITECTS for MR & MRS M MASTERSON

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 03, 101, 102

REFUSE permission for the development described in the application and submitted plans for the following reason(s):

1 The roof extensions, by reason of siting and design, appear unduly bulky and overbearing when viewed from neighbouring property and in the streetscene, and are at odds with the prevailing form and massing of roofs in West Drive and West Drive Gardens, to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers and the visual amenity and character of the locality, contrary to Policy E45 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (1994). 2 The front dormers, by reason of their number and uniform siting, give the building an excessively fussy appearance in the streetscene, to the detriment of the visual amenity and character of the locality, contrary to Policy E45 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (1994).

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 41 – UDP and Deposit Draft UDP Policies and Proposals : (E6, E45, E51, H10) (SD1, D4, D5, EP25, H10)

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1. Amenity and character (E6, E45, E51, H10; SD1, D4, D5, EP25, H10) 2. Consultation responses

INFORMATION

Details of this application are reported to the Committee at the request of a Nominated member. a) Summary

TPO Council Interest: None Continued/…..

218 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/07 - P/424/04/DFU continued…..

b) Site Description • two storey detached dwelling located on wedge shaped site to south side of West Drive Gardens, Harrow Weald • original property had hipped roof over, with catslide roof and subordinate forward projecting hip features to front elevation; two storey side extension with flank wall to irregular side boundary & forward projecting garage • prior to unauthorised works, side extension had a parapet wall around a flat roof over • substantial tree and vegetation screening to rear boundary with no. 5 West Drive • West Drive & West Drive Gardens characterised by 1930s semi-detached and detached two storey dwellings, generally with hipped roofs, some feature subordinate gabled elements, half hips, and front/side dormers • neighbouring hip-roofed semi-detached dwelling to west, no. 11, sited forward at 45o in relation to West Drive Gardens and application property, to face junction with West Drive; benefits from single storey extension at side and conservatory at rear • neighbouring gabled detached dwelling to east, no. 7, sited forward in relation to application dwelling and on higher site level, with secondary windows to lounge and bedroom in facing side elevation

c) Proposal Details • removal of catslide roof and two dormers to part of first floor front and replacement with partially recessed vertical front wall • flat roof over remaining part of ground floor • alterations to roof to reduce the pitch of the hip on the east side and to replace the front gable with a hip and dormer

d) Relevant History

HAR/22007 Erect 2 Storey Extension For Additional Rooms GRANTED And Double Garage 18-JUN-64

EAST/533/98/FUL Pitched Roof Over Side Extension And Front GRANTED Dormer 17-NOV-98

EAST/383/00/FUL Alterations And Roof Extension At Side With REFUSED Front Dormers; Front And Rear Dormers To 09-NOV-00 Existing Roof; Pitched Roof Over Ground-Floor Front Extension

Reason for Refusal:- roposed roof extension and dormer windows, by reason of unsatisfactory design, size and siting, would be unduly obtrusive and overbearing, and out of character with the locality, to the detriment of the appearance of the property and the area, contrary to Harrow Unitary Development Plan policies E6 and E45”.

Continued/…..

219 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/07 - P/424/04/DFU continued…..

EAST/456/01/FUL Alterations And Roof Extension At Side With GRANTED Front Dormers;Front And Rear Dormers To 07-AUG-01 Existing Roof; Pitched Roof Over Ground-Floor Front Extension

EAST/631/02/FUL Roof Extension At Side,Rear & Front ; Front & REFUSED Rear Dormers 13-SEP-02

Reasons for Refusal:-

1. The roof extensions, by reason of siting and design, appear unduly massive and overbearing when viewed from neighbouring property and in the streetscene, and are at odds with the prevailing form and massing of roofs in West Drive and West Drive Gardens, to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers and the visual amenity and character of the locality, contrary to Policy E45 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (1994).

2. The front dormers, by reason of their number and uniform siting, give the building an excessively fussy appearance in the streetscene, to the detriment of the visual amenity and character of the locality, contrary to Policy E45 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan (1994).

An enforcement notice was served on 11th February 2003, requiring alterations to the front elevation to secure compliance with the scheme approved under EAST/456/01/FUL, the restoration of a subordinate hipped roof to the front, a reduced pitch to the side roof planes (also as approved under EAST/456/01/FUL) and works to make good the affected remaining parts of the roof planes. Both the decisions to refuse permission and pursue enforcement action were subsequently the subject of appeals. However the appeals were dismissed, though the Inspector varied the enforcement notice to allow as an alternative remedy, the restoration of the house to its original condition prior to the breach of planning control.

e) Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 6 3 22-MAR-04

Summary of Responses: loss of privacy, poor appearance, excessive height/size/scale, intrusiveness all remain; previous objections stand; unlawful development should not remain; turned down by Inspector; proposal does not overcome concerns

Continued/…..

220 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 3/07 - P/424/04/DFU continued…..

APPRAISAL

1. Amenity and character In supporting the Council’s decision to refuse permission for the existing, unlawful development, the appeal Inspector concluded that the gable constituted a “dominant and somewhat overbearing element”. He went on to find that the vertical emphasis of the altered house was visually awkward, incongruous and obtrusive, and that “the extent of catslide roof in the front elevation and the number and uniformity of the dormer windows in it are another strident feature of the altered property. The expanse of roof conveys a massing effect that adds to the overbearing nature of the features I have described”. However, the Inspector concluded that there was no harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of privacy, sunlight or daylight loss, nor any diminution of outlook from the nearest neighbouring gardens and windows.

Finally, in considering the remedial measures prescribed in the enforcement notice, the appeal Inspector stated that: “I have considered whether any lesser changes such as a reduction in size of the dormers or replacement of some of them with velux roof lights would overcome the harm to amenities, but these relatively minor alterations would not overcome the harm that results from the roof form and height”.

In the context of the Inspector’s findings it is acknowledged that the subject proposal would make some limited improvement over the existing, unlawful development by making modest reductions to both the visual massing of the catslide roof and the dominance of the gable. However the resulting development would fall short of the remedies sought under the terms of the enforcement notice. Specifically, in relation to the development approved under EAST/456/01/FUL (being less onerous to the applicant than the alternative remedy of re-instating the dwellinghouse that had previously existed) the proposal would fail to (i) reduce the ridge height, (ii) sufficiently reduce the pitch on the east side (and no reduction in pitch on the west side), (iii) fully hip the front gable and subordinate this element in relation to the main house roof, and (iv) alter the proportions, alignment and roof design of the front dormers. As a result, it is considered that the proposal would continue to detract from the visual amenity and character of this established residential locality for the reasons hitherto identified.

3. Consultation Responses All other matters as dealt with in the main report.

Additionally, it would now be expedient for the Borough Secretary to proceed with the prosecution.

221 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 SECTION 4 - CONSULTATIONS FROM NEIGHBOURING AUTHORITIES

4/01 EDGWAREBURY HOUSE FARM, ELSTREE HILL P/328/04/CNA/RJS SOUTH, ELSTREE, BOREHAMWOOD HERTS Ward: None

CONSULTATION: RAISING HEIGHT OF EXISTING LATTICE TOWER BY 5M WITH THE ADDITION OF 6 ANTENNAE AND ADDITIONAL HEADFRAME, AND PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL CABIN WITHIN COMPOUND TO FACILITATE MAST SHARE

HERTSMERE BOROUGH COUNCIL

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 30/GLN0099/02; 30/GLN0099/03

RAISES NO OBJECTION to the development set out in the application

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Impact on London Borough of Harrow 2) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Site Description

• Edgware Farm House is located on the western side of Elstree Hill South; • The site is located 500 metres north of the boundary between the Boroughs of Harrow and Hertsmere; • A main freeway (Watford Bypass) forms part of the boundary between the Boroughs; b) Proposal Details

• Addition of telecommunications facility to the existing mast, including a 5.0 metre extension to the existing mast, siting of two additional cabins within the security compound to facilitate a mast/ site share between Airwave and O2; Continued/…..

222 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 4/01 - P/328/04/CNA continued…..

d) Relevant Planning History

None e) Notification Sent Replies Expiry 1 0 18-MAR-04

APPRAISAL

1) Visual amenity

The existing telecommunications facility is located 500 metres from the Harrow’s northern boundary. Furthermore with the Borough boundary consisting of a freeway, it only adds to increase the horizontal separation distance between the site and properties located within the Borough of Harrow. Although the proposal involves an increase in the height and number of antenna attached to the existing facility, the distance from the Borough boundary would ensure there was no detrimental impact caused over the London Borough of Harrow, nor would it cause any material detriment to any person or property within the Borough. As the proposed development would comply with ICNIRP guidelines the Council may only consider the visual impact. Lastly it should be emphasised that any proposal to mast-share should be welcomed.

2) Consultation Responses

None.

223 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

4/02 STONEGROVE & SPUR ROAD ESTATES, EDGWARE, P/527/04/CNA/TEM MIDDX Ward: None

CONSULTATION: OUTLINE REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE 1355 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, COMMUNITY CENTRE, CHURCH, CHURCH HALL WITH ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE & CAR PARKING WITH ACCESS.

LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: AL(0)100C, 111E, 112E, 153C, 154E

OBJECT to the development set out in the application and submitted plans for the following reasons:

1 The proposed development would result in the loss of open land, and the provision of excessive bulk and building heights along the Stonegrove frontage to the detriment of the character of the Green Belt and the appearance of the area.

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 34 – Consultation as a Neighbouring LPA

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Impact on Green Belt 2) Impact on Character and Appearance of Area 3) Parking and Traffic 4) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Council Interest: None b) Site Description

• Land within London Borough of Barnet on east side of Stonegrove bounded also by Spur Road to north, Edgware Way to east, and residential development to south • Site area about 12 hectares Continued/…..

224 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 4/02 - P/527/04/CNA continued…..

• Occupied by 603 flats in 3 – 11 storey buildings, ancillary garages and parking, church, community centre, school with playing fields and associated buildings • Currently accessed from several residential streets, vehicle access from Stonegrove currently closed off • Land within London Borough of Harrow in Stonegrove opposite site comprises 2-storey houses and 3-storey flats c) Proposal Details

• Demolition of all existing buildings on the site • Outline permission sought, means of access to be determined, for following development • 1,355 houses and flats in 2 – 13 storey buildings • 216 houses, 1,139 flats • 717 private units, 638 affordable units (47%) • 1,501 parking spaces for residential • church and community centre with 40 parking spaces • open space (0.52 hectares) • existing accesses into site retained apart from Stonegrove, new access proposed onto Spur Road, 2 new accesses onto Stonegrove to provide service road along Stonegrove frontage • 3/4 storey houses and 4/5 and 8 storey flats fronting onto Stonegrove beyond service road d) Relevant History

None. e) Applicant’s Statement

• Planning Statement accompanies application, conclusions as follows:-

• Principle of residential development and further regeneration consistent with sustainability principles advocated by PPG1, PPG3 and PPG13 • Recognised need for proposals to regenerate estate and address historic problems typical of 1960’s development • Alternative layouts and mix of development discussed with stakeholders and proposals represent optimum for residents and applicants • Development will provide balanced, mixed and inclusive community, consistent with latest Government advice to create sustainable communities which offer choice of housing and lifestyle in quality environment • Will enhance character of estate and integrate well with surrounding area adopting many suburban characteristics on this edge of city site on gateway route into London Continued/…..

225 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 4/02 - P/527/04/CNA continued…..

• No adverse impacts on openness of Green Belt • Proposed means of access to site and internal access and circulation routes provide improved internal site environment, reduced traffic speeds and rat-running through site, with greater priority to pedestrians, cyclists, and integration with existing links and footpaths • Proposed level of parking consistent with PPG13 • Proposed Community Travel Plan promotes and encourages residents to reduce reliance on private car • Site within walking distance of numerous facilities in locality, would benefit from new Academy education and associated community facilities • Application also accompanied by Environmental Statement, Socio-Economic Report, Transport Assessment, Parameters Statement, Tree Condition Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment

f) Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 209 12 05-APR-04

Summary of Responses: Too dense, traffic congestion and noise pollution, inadequate drainage, obtrusive and an eyesore, inadequate on-site parking, out of character, overdevelopment, buildings too high.

APPRAISAL

1) Impact on Green Belt

The highway verge within London Borough of Harrow on the western side of Brockley Hill is designated Green Belt and extends down to the Canons Corner roundabout at the junction of Stonegrove, London Road and Spur Road. At present the south side of Spur Road comprises school playing fields which provide a buffer between the suburban built area to the south and the Green Belt land to the north of Spur Road. Part of the playing fields area is already earmarked for a replacement school, and this consultation proposes to develop the remainder of the fields for housing. The loss of open land would be detrimental to the outlook from within the adjacent Green Belt and harmful to its character.

2) Impact on Character and Appearance of Area

The illustrative masterplan layout shows proposed development facing Stonegrove to be sited about 20m from the existing carriageway. Most of the frontage would be taken up by 3/4 and 4 storey buildings, and these would relate acceptably to the 2 and 3- storey dwellings within Harrow which are opposite the site. 5 and 8-storey elements however would provide excessive contrast in height which would be detrimental to the appearance and character of the area. Continued/…..

226 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 4/02 - P/527/04/CAN continued…..

3) Parking and Traffic

Comments on this issue will be report at the meeting.

4) Consultation Responses • Too dense, overdevelopment – the overall scale of development is not a matter for the Council to consider. • Inadequate drainage – not a planning consideration • Other issues discussed in report.

227 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

4/03 R/O 136 GREENFORD ROAD, LONDON POSTAL P/320/04/DNA/JH REGION SPORTS CLUB, PRIORY AVENUE, WEMBLEY, MIDDX Ward: None

CONSULTATION: SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS TO PROVIDE CHANGING ROOMS WITH ANCILLARY FACILITIES.

BRENT COUNCIL

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: Plans received on 8th January 2004, OS Plan

RAISES NO OBJECTIONS to the development set out in the application, subject to regard being had to the following matters:

INFORMATIVES 1 Standard Informative 34 – Consultation as a Neighbouring LPA

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Impact on London Borough of Harrow 2) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION a) Summary

Site Area: 7.2 hectares Footprint: 982m2 Council Interest: None b) Site Description

The proposed development site is in the London Borough of Brent, adjacent to the Harrow Borough boundary at Sudbury Hill. The site relates to the London Postal Region Sports Club, which occupies the southwest corner of the Sudbury Hill playing fields comprising 7.2 hectares. The club is situated to the rear of residential properties fronting Hussein Close, The Rising Sun Public House and a site of new flat development off Greenford Road. Continued/…..

228 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 4/03 - P/320/04/DNA continued….. c) Proposal Details • The application proposes the erection of single storey extensions to both flank elevations together with a large glazed conservatory across the width of the rear elevation to provide changing rooms, toilets, office and kitchen facilities. • The proposed additions would add a further 469m2 of floor area to the club. d) Relevant Planning History None. e) Notification Sent Replies Expiry 20 0 18-MAR-04

APPRAISAL

1) Impact on London Borough of Harrow

The proposed additions are of an appropriate scale given the size of the existing Sports Club. The bulk of the additions would not be visible from the street frontage. Views of the site are restricted due to its position to the rear of residential properties, to the side of the railway and facing outwards towards the playing fields. Accordingly it is considered that the proposed additions would have a negligible impact on the London Borough of Harrow. Likewise the additions would not cause any physical or material detriment to any person or property within the Borough in light of the additions accommodating appropriate setbacks from adjoining boundaries.

2) Consultation Responses Not applicable.

229 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004

4/04 BACS, 3 DE HAVILLAND ROAD, EDGWARE P/2204/03/CNA/UE Ward: None

CONSULTATION: REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE 125 X 2 BED AND 14 1 BED FLATS, AND 44 TOWN HOUSES IN PART 3, PART 4 STOREY BLOCK WITH 172 PARKING SPACES

BRENT COUNCIL

RECOMMENDATION

Plan Nos: 463-01D.

RAISES NO OBJECTIONS to the development set out in the application, subject to regard being had to the following matters:

1 Consideration should be given to the need for adequate traffic management measures to minimise any adverse impact from additional traffic arising from the development

1 INFORMATIVE: These comments are provided by this Council as a Local Planning Authority affected by the development and are made in response to consultation under the provisions of Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

INFORMATIVE - REASON FOR GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION: The decision to grant permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Harrow Unitary Development Plans 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: Harrow Unitary Development Plan: H2 Housing Provision - Target for Additional Dwellings H9 Provision of Affordable Housing Revised Deposit Draft Harrow Unitary Development Plan: SH1 Housing Provision and Housing Need H4 Housing Provision on Previously-Developed Land H6 Affordable Housing SEM1 Development and the Borough' s Regeneration Strategy EM16 Business, Industrial and Warehousing Use - Outside Designated Areas T13 Parking Standards

Continued/…..

230 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 4/04 - P/2204/03/CNA continued…..

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS AND POLICIES (UDP) (Replacement UDP)

1) Housing Needs (H2, H9) (H4, H6) 2) Car parking (T13) 3) Consultation Responses

INFORMATION

a) Summary

Council interest : None.

b) Site Description

• The site which is approximately 3 hectares on size is located on De Havilland Road • The site is the remaining section of a much larger industrial site, which has been re- developed for residential use since the 1990s.

c) Proposal Details • For the demolition of the existing commercial buildings and erection of 177 self contained dwellings, comprising 28 four bedroom town houses, 19 three bed-room town houses, 11 one –bedroom flats 111 two-bedroom flats and three-bedroom flats and 141 car parking

d) Relevant History

A similar application received from Brent 17/09/2003 Ref: P/2204/03/CNA, was originally reported to committee for the development of existing commercial site for 125 x 2 bed and 14 1 bed flats, and 44 town houses in part 3, part 4 storey block with 172 parking spaces.

e) Notifications Sent Replies Expiry 1 0 18-OCT-03

APPRAISAL

1) Housing Needs

The proposed development accords with the adopted and replacement Harrow UDP January 2004 (Harrow) and the associated (Brent) UDP 2004 policies, SPG13 and 17. Also the development accords with PPG13. The high proportion of affordable housing in this development provides an opportunity to address important housing needs. There may need to be a need to take adequate traffic management measures to minimise any adverse impact of additional traffic as a result of this development. Consideration may also be given to the cross-borough flow of school children and the implication of this for existing school facilities. Continued/…..

231 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004 Item 4/04 - P/2204/03/CNA continued…..

2) Car Parking

None.

3) Consultation responses.

None.

232 ______Development Control Committee Wednesday 21st April 2004