The application involving building on Metropolitan Open Land had already been deferred last November.
Manize Talukdar, Democratic & Electoral Services Officer at Harrow Council informed Harrow Hill Trust, who have campaigned against the proposals:
Please note that officers will be asking Members to defer this application as an incorrect version of the report was published in the agenda, in error.Harrow Hill Trust notified supporters of the deferral on its Change Petition website LINK and commented:
So although it [the planning application] will be raised at the meeting it will be deferred. Unfortunately as it is being raised, the constitution does not allow us to raise a question even though it is not going to be discussed!It seems that Brent is not the only council having problems with its planning department!
We have clearly shown many mistakes in the applicant's documentation and the subsequent Case Officer's report, as set out in our letters of 11th June 2016 and 27 February 2017, we noted that the latest Officer's Report published unilaterally scrapped the MOL swap in favour of building on MOL and having an MOL extension. This being in conflict with the application as published and the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
This is all very worrying when we are relying on our Council's planning department to serve the residents.
For the record these are the recommendations as currently posted on the Harrow Council Planning Committee agenda page:
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Committee is asked to:· agree the reasons for approval and the conditions as set out in this report in appendix 1; and
· refer this application to the Mayor of London (the GLA) as a Stage 2 referral; and
· subject to the Mayor of London (or delegated authorised officer) advising that he is content to allow the Council to determine the application and does not wish to issue a direction under Article 7 that he does not wish to direct refusal, or to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purposes of determining the application, delegate authority to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the continued negotiation and completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and other enabling legislation and issue of the planning permission and subject to minor amendments to the conditions (set out in Appendix 1 of this report) or the legal agreement. The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms would cover the following matters:
. a) The area to the west of the application site shown on Plan P.05.12 delineated in black and coloured light green (referred to below as “the MOL extension land”) shall remain permanently open and not be developed at any time in the future except for landscaping purposes approved by the authority or in accordance with policy relating to MOL as set out in London Plan Policy 17.7 or a revision thereof.
. b) The existing buildings which are within the MOL extension land and also those within the area delineated in blue on Plan P.05.12 shall be demolished no later than 15 months after first occupation of the proposed new Sports facility building the subject of planning application P/1940/16.
. c) The area of land delineated in blue on Plan P.05.12 shall thereafter not be developed at any time in the future except for landscaping purposes approved by the authority or in accordance with the policy relating to MOL as set out in London Plan Policy 17.7 or a revision thereof.
. d) Community Use Agreement to be implemented;
. e) Implementation of the Sustainable Travel Plan;
. f) Undertaking that the applicant will work with Harrow Council on Employment and Training Initiatives including apprenticeships associated with the proposed construction;
g) Additional Tree Planting;
. h) Local goods and services; and
. i) Monitoring fee - £5,000.00
RECOMMENDATION B
Appendix 1 - Plan P.05.12
That if the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 14th June 2017, or as such extended period as may be agreed by the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, then it is recommended to delegate the decision to REFUSE planning permission to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning on the grounds that:The proposed development, in the absence of a Planning Obligation to secure necessary agreements and commitments in relation to the development, would fail to mitigate the impact of the development upon infrastructure and the wider area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies 3.19, 6.3, 7.14 and 8.2 of the London Plan (2016), Policies CS 1 G and Z of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012) and Policies DM 43, DM 46 and DM 50 of the Local Plan (2013), and the provisions of the Harrow Planning Obligations supplementary planning document.
REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS
Whilst noting the harmful impact on the Conservation Area, the wider benefits to both Harrow School and the wider community are considered to override these concerns in this instance. Notwithstanding this, there are improvements to the Conservation Area and the setting of Listed Buildings, notably:· The implementation of high quality landscaping within the area to the south of Football Lane both within the application site and the areas adjacent the subject of the s106 obligation.
· The enhancements to the setting of listed buildings including in particular the Head Master’s, Vaughan Library, the Chapel, New Schools and Butler building by reason of creation of openness adjacent to them and by reason of the landscaping proposed, in accordance with covenants in the s106 obligation Furthermore the application has demonstrated very special circumstances in accordance with policies relating to development within Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), notably:
· The site circumstances, including the significant planning constraints experienced across the School’s estate and the lack of alternative suitable land;
· The pressing academic curriculum needs for sports and science;
· The very significant sports benefits of the proposal, providing sports facilities in a sustainable location which are of very high quality and sports training facilities for young persons in particular;
· The provision of significant shared access to very high quality sports and leisure facilities for the local community and local schools at no charge to the public purse in an area of high deprivation and need for sports facilities, where there are no comparable sports facilities in the area of such quality.
No comments:
Post a Comment