The Planning Committee of Harrow Council met on Wednesday 22 May 2024, approving several planning applications, including a redevelopment of bungalows into flats, the installation of an ANPR camera at Morrisons, and extensions to residential properties. A key decision involved the approval of a two-storey building comprising six self-contained flats at 40a Somervell Road and 1 Carlyon Avenue, despite objections regarding its scale and impact on neighbours.

Redevelopment at 40a Somervell Road and 1 Carlyon Avenue

The committee approved the redevelopment of two semi-detached bungalows at 40a Somervell Road and 1 Carlyon Avenue into a two-storey building containing six self-contained flats. This decision followed a previous refusal for a larger development on the same site, which was then appealed. Councillors debated the scale of the development, its impact on neighbouring properties, and concerns raised by residents about consultation processes and potential overdevelopment. Councillor Peymana Assad argued against the proposal, stating, I reject this out of principle, citing concerns about the conversion of family homes into flats and inadequate consultation. However, the committee ultimately voted to approve the application, with Councillor Nitin Parekh proposing refusal on grounds of excessive height, bulk, scale, and proximity to the rear garden of 42 Somervell Road, but this was not carried. The approval was granted with conditions, including further examination of the placement of commercial bins.

ANPR Camera Installation at Morrisons

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective installation of a 4-metre high pole with an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera at the Morrisons car park on 299 Uxbridge Road. The application was called in by Councillor Nitin Parekh, who expressed uncertainty about why it was before the committee, stating, I'm not altogether quite sure why it's before us, to be honest. It really is just a poll with a camera. The committee chair, Councillor Marilyn Ashton, emphasised that the application was solely for the camera and pole, and not for the parking restrictions themselves, which would require separate approval. Despite numerous objections from residents and the Hatch End Association concerning the impact on users of the adjacent Harrow Arts Centre and the perceived lack of consultation on parking restrictions, the committee approved the installation. A condition was added to ensure the camera operates in accordance with established parking arrangements from a previous planning application (P/2319/03/CFU).

Residential Extensions and Outbuildings Approved

Several applications for residential extensions and outbuildings were approved:

• 18 Wetheral Drive, Stanmore: Permission was granted for a first-floor side to rear extension, a single-storey rear extension, and an outbuilding for use as a home office, gym, and storage. The application was brought before the committee because the applicant is a member of staff. An objection was received regarding potential loss of light, but officers concluded the impact was minimal and acceptable.
• 70 Uxbridge Road, Harrow Weald: Outline planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a two-storey building with habitable roofspace containing eight self-contained flats. This decision followed previous refusals for similar applications that were allowed on appeal, primarily due to issues with disabled parking provision. The current proposal was deemed acceptable, with landscaping details to be reserved for later approval.
• 72 Elmgrove Crescent: Prior approval was not required for a single-storey rear extension. As the applicant is a member of staff, the application was brought to the committee, but since no objections were received from neighbours, the extension was approved by default under permitted development rights.
• Chestnut Cottage, Tanglewood Close: Permission was granted for the installation of 1.9-metre high electronic metal front entrance gates. The application was brought before the committee as the applicant is a member of staff. The gates were considered acceptable due to their design, scale, and material, which were deemed to blend with the existing street scene and preserve the character of the Green Belt and nearby heritage assets. A condition was imposed to ensure the gates open inwards.