HARROW COUNCIL
ADDENDUM
PLANNING COMMITTEE
DATE : 30th September 2014
1/01
Recommendation
AMEND recommendation B to:
That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 13th October 2014 then it is
recommended to delegate the decision to REFUSE planning permission to the
Divisional Director of Planning on the grounds that:
The proposed development, in the absence of a Legal Agreement would fail to secure
the provision of affordable housing on the site and would therefore fail to adequately
mitigate the impact of the development on the wider area, and provide for necessary
social and physical infrastructural improvements arising directly from the development,
contrary to the NPPF (2012), policy 3.12.A/B of The London Plan 2011 and policy
CS1.J of the Harrow Core Strategy 2012.
Referrals
Stanmore Society – No comments received
CAAC - If this is allowed to go up the other gaps would be filled in. This confronts you
straight away and is overdevelopment that would be visible from the conservation
area. There is a lack of parking provision. There would be parking problems which
would affect the conservation area. We are happy with a contemporary feel in
principle. The new building shouts out though. You are moving from something that
does not dominate to something that does. The scale is too much.
Buildings on corners can usually address corners better than this one does. Corners
are a good opportunity to make a design statement but this one does not. Can
sometimes pick up the horizontal line of the neighbours e.g. of the shopping parade so
they speak to each other and have some read through. The massing of the building at
the back is no different to others further down the road. There might be need for
modulation at the front. Maybe some modulation would soften it.
Consultations
One comment has been received since writing the report to the Planning Committee.
This can be summarised as follows:

Members of the Elm Park Residents' Assocation in Bernays Close, The Ridgeway,
Nelson Road and Glebe Road have not been formally notified

The Report to Committee is flawed with regard to the 'Principle of Development'.
The Planning Statement states that there are seven drinking establishments within
_________________________________________________________________________________________
1
Planning Committee Addendum
30 th September 2014
1 km of the site. However:
- The Spice Rack is an Indian restaurant and bar
- Lava Lanes is a bowling alley down a steep staircase in a basement
- Man in the Moon has no outside seating area
- Sahara Lounge is an alcohol free establishment
- The Abercorn Arms has been closed over a number of months and
rumoured to be up for development
- The Vine has been closed over a number of months and rumoured to be
up for development
- The Leefe Robinson falls outside the 1 km boundary and it is a Miller
Carter restaurant and not a public house.
 The report goes on to state that
- "The building would give rise to a building of significantly increased size and scale"
and then ameliorates this fact by using the "setting space of Pynnacles Close
along the Western side"
-
"The buildings in the vicinity of the site have traditional scale and pitched roof
profiles" and yet seeks to justify a bland, white block being placed in their midst as
being acceptable. The Council's own Design Consultant has raised concerns as
to the absence of a clearly defined and clearly articulated entrance from Pynnacles
Close.
-
"The design and layout of the proposed building are considered to make
appropriate use of the varied site levels and it is considered that this assists to
mitigate the impact of the proposed size and scale of the building". Yet, it goes on
to state that "It is noted that there are some overlapping issues in terms of the
vertical stacking of rooms between the 2nd and 3rd floor" and states refusal on this
basis could not be sustained.
-
There are, therefore, numerous grounds for refusal of this application.

Is the Planning Committee wishing to Grant this application, despite all of the
above and that it
- Fails to provide any affordable housing
- It is a Gated Development
- Has access issues for servicing the retail outlets and traffic onto the main
junction with Sainsburys store and Stanmore
- Has "Amenity Space" in the form of a "Balcony" or "Terrace" for 9 x 2 bed and 3
x 3 bed family homes
- Compromises the daylight of adjoining housing
Consultation Responses
At the end of this section, ADD:
 Members of the Elm Park Residents' Assocation in Bernays Close, The Ridgeway,
Nelson Road and Glebe Road have not been formally notified – It is acknowledged
that the properties on these roads have not been formally notified of the
application. Given the distance between these properties and the application site
(225 – 500 km), they are not a statutory consultee. It is a matter for the Elm Park
Residents Association to notify their members as they see fit. The development
proposal was advertised in the local newspaper and two site notices were put up to
inform the local community of the development proposal.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
2
Planning Committee Addendum
30 th September 2014

The Report to Committee is flawed with regard to the 'Principle of Development'.
The Planning Statement states that there are seven drinking establishments within
1 km of the site. However,
- The Spice Rack is an Indian restaurant and bar
- Lava Lanes is a bowling alley down a steep staircase in a basement
- Man in the Moon has no outside seating area
- Sahara Lounge is an alcohol free establishment
- The Abercorn Arms has been closed over a number of months and
rumoured to be up for development
- The Vine has been closed over a number of months and rumoured to be
up for development
- The Leefe Robinson falls outside the 1km boundary and it is a Miller
Carter restaurant and not a public house
As set out in the Committee Report, the Planning Statement submitted as part of
the current planning application seeks to demonstrate compliance with Policy
DM47(A)(b) and seeks to demonstrate that ‘there are adequate similar facilities
within walking distance which offer equivalent provision’. It is acknowledged that
the drinking establishments identified in the submitted Planning Statement are not
identical to the facilities at The Crazy Horse. However, this is not required by Policy
DM47(A)(b). This policy requires the provision of ‘adequate similar facilities’, and
it is considered that the seven establishments identified in the Planning Statement
sufficiently meet this test.
As a point to note, The Leefe Robinson is within 1 km of the site, as measured on
the Council’s GIS mapping system. It is possible that The Abercorn Arms and The
Vine could return to business without the need for planning permission. The lack of
an outside seating area at The Man in the Moon does not make its provision
dissimilar to that at The Crazy Horse. The provision of an Indian restaurant at The
Spice Rack does not make its bar provision dissimilar to that at The Crazy Horse.
The provision of a bowling alley at Lava Lanes does not make its bar provision
dissimilar to that at The Crazy Horse.
 The report is further flawed as it goes on to state that
- "The building would give rise to a building of significantly increased size and scale"
and then ameliorates this fact by using the "setting space of Pynnacles Close
along the Western side"
-
"The buildings in the vicinity of the site have traditional scale and pitched roof
profiles" and yet seeks to justify a bland, white block being placed in their midst as
being acceptable. The Council's own Design Consultant has raised concerns as
to the absence of a clearly defined and clearly articulated entrance from Pynnacles
Close.
-
"The design and layout of the proposed building are considered to make
appropriate use of the varied site levels and it is considered that this assists to
mitigate the impact of the proposed size and scale of the building". Yet, it goes on
to state that "It is noted that there are some overlapping issues in terms of the
vertical stacking of rooms between the 2nd and 3rd floor" and states refusal on this
basis could not be sustained.

There are, therefore, numerous grounds for refusal of this application. Is the
_________________________________________________________________________________________
3
Planning Committee Addendum
30 th September 2014
Planning Committee wishing to Grant this application, despite all of the above and
that it
- Fails to provide any affordable housing
- It is a Gated Development
- Has access issues for servicing the retail outlets and traffic onto the main
junction with Sainsburys store and Stanmore
- Has "Amenity Space" in the form of a "Balcony" or "Terrace" for 9 x 2 bed and 3
x 3 bed family homes
- Compromises the daylight of adjoining housing.
The comments that have been received in relation to the assessment of the
proposal are noted. It is considered that the report to the Planning Committee
provides an overall balanced assessment of the proposal. It is a matter for
Committee Members to satisfy themselves that they are in agreement with the way
that various issues have been balanced.
For the avoidance of doubt, the concern raised by the Council's Design Consultant
in relation to the absence of a clearly defined and clearly articulated entrance from
Pynnacles Close has been addressed by planning condition no. 3.
Conditions
AMEND condition No. 23 as follows:
The commercial premises hereby permitted shall only be used for the purposes set out
as below under sub-sections a) and b) and for no other purpose, including any other
purpose in Classes A1 and A2 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).
a.
Class A1 permitted uses include - retail sale of goods other than hot food; as a
post office, the sale of tickets or as a travel agency; the sale of sandwiches or other
cold food for consumption off the premises; hairdressing; direction of funerals; display
of goods for sale; hiring out of domestic or personal goods or articles; the reception of
goods to be washed, cleaned or repaired, where the sale, display or service is to
visiting members of the public.
b.
Class A2 permitted uses include - financial services; professional service (other
than health or medical services); any other services (but excluding use as a betting
office)
REASON: The exclusion of the use of the site as a betting office (use Class A2) is
required to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring and future occupiers of the site, to
ensure such uses would be appropriate within the town centre environment and to
prevent an over proliferation of such uses within the Town Centre in accordance with
policies 7.6B and 7.15.B of The London Plan 2011.
2/03
CONSULTATIONS UPDATE
On objection has been received:  Noise and disturbance throughout the day and weekends
 Gates to Cannonbury Avenue and Glover Road are closed each night at dusk
 Concern regarding safety of children playing in adjacent playground and park
 No lighting in the Croft so the safety of club members walking though park in dark
is a safety issue
 Parking
_________________________________________________________________________________________
4
Planning Committee Addendum
30 th September 2014
Officers Response
 Noise and disturbance addressed in report
 The closure of gates at dusk is not a material planning consideration rather it is a
park management issue.
 Although not a material planning consideration, the Croft is public open space and
therefore it is not considered that the proposed use would result in additional risk to
children using the space.
 A condition is recommended to ensure that the permitted use shall not commence
until there is an approved lighting scheme for the public accesses on Cannonbury
Drive and Glover Road.
 Parking is addressed in report.
2/06
Flood Risk and Drainage
At the end of this section, ADD:
Since writing the report to the Planning Committee, the applicant has submitted plans
and supporting information showing details of drainage. The Councils Drainage
Engineer is satisfied with the information that has been provided. Condition No. 8 has
been removed accordingly and condition no. 3 has updated accordingly.
Conditions
REPLACE condition No. 3 with:
Save where varied by the other planning conditions comprising this planning permission,
the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
plans: Document titled: Sports Hall; Planning, Design and Access Statement Rev. P3 –
07.08.14; 6335-P106 Rev P4; 6335-P110 Rev P3; 6335-P117 Rev P1; 6335-P1000 Rev
P4; 6335-P1001 Rev P8; Drainage Impact Assessment – Version 1.1; Untitled Surface
Water Drainage Plan; Statement of Community Involvement (February 2014);
Construction Method, Phasing Plan and Logistics Statement; Bentley Wood High School
Travel Plan (March 2014); Transport Assessment for the Expansion of Bentley Wood High
School (April 2014); Bentley Wood High School – Phase 1 Preliminary Contamination
Assessment Ref: DMB/771606/R1; Ecological Appraisal Ref: 771606-REP-ENV-100 Rev
0; 6335-P003-3 of 4 Rev P2; 6335-P003-4 of 4 Rev P2; 6335-P116 Rev P2; Sustainability
Report Ref KSc/7111911/JP Rev 01; Arboricultural Report by A.T. Coombes Associates
Ltd 20th June 2014; 6335-P104 Rev P11; 6335-P105 Rev P10; APL60 Rev. B (21.08.14);
S-100-11 Rev. E2, Drainage Impact Assessment (Version 2.0 - 12.09.2014)
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
REMOVE condition No. 8:
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of works for the
disposal of surface water and surface water storage and attenuation works have been
submitted to and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The works shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: To ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided, reduce and mitigate
the effects of flood risk in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
and Policy DM 10 of the Harrow Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013)
and to ensure that the necessary construction and design criteria for the development
proposals follow approved conditions according to NPPF (2012).
3/01
Additional letter from the adjoining neighbour received on 12th September stating the
following: Illegal construction on adjoining property infringes my right to light an easement
_________________________________________________________________________________________
5
Planning Committee Addendum
30 th September 2014


(servitude) recognised by the Law.
Kindly request members of the planning committee to take action to remove this
illegal construction immediately.
Due to the illegal construction on adjoining property, my property de-valued
£35000-40000 at present.
Officer response: Point 1 is addressed in the officer’s report and is reflected in the recommended
reason for refusal
 Point 2 is noted
 Property valuations are not a material planning consideration
AGENDA ITEM 9
ADVANCE WARNING GIVEN OF REQUESTS TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS ON
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Application
Objector
Applicant/Applicant’s
Representative (who has
advised that they would wish
to reply)
1/01 – Crazy Horse Public
House, 43 Church Road,
Stanmore
Mr Roy Tunstall
Mr Paul Jenkins
2/05 – Arden Cottage,
Oakhill Avenue, Pinner
Ms Susan Wilkinson
Mr Reis (Provisional)
3/01 – 154 Eastcote Lane,
South Harrow
Mr Vindanagamade
Mr Chaudry
_________________________________________________________________________________________
6
Planning Committee Addendum
30 th September 2014