The BW Foundation Ltd (BWF) has submitted a new planning application for the redevelopment of the North Harrow Assembly Hall (NHAH). This is available to view at North Harrow Library, Pinner Road HA1 4HF and online at www.harrow.gov.uk “Planning” “Application Search” ref P/1953/10.
There are about 20 documents listed on the website, many lengthy and technical. Most of these are not identified by title, but simply as "PL Application Supporting Document". We believe this makes it far less likely that residents will have the necessary time or inclination to find out what they need.
To enable you to comment effectively, we feel it is worth reading at least
the Executive Summary, Background and Proposal sections of the Planning Statement
(it is currently the third document from the bottom of the list) for details
of the new scheme. We can email you a copy, or more information about the
other documents available, on request.
For your guidance, there is a PDF council document “Commenting on Planning
Applications” at:
http://www.harrow.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?downloadID=1814&fileID=5500
Harrow Council has sent Neighbour Notification letters dated 23 July, asking for a response within 21 days. Yet we understand that some residents in Gloucester Road did not get theirs until 30 July and others nearby had (at that time) had nothing.
For the above reasons and it being a major development application, we
requested the council to extend the response deadline. Case Officer Mr Stanley
Lau kindly replied: “I acknowledge some neighbours may require additional
time to make representations and I welcome comments on the planning application
beyond this period and up to the point of me finalising any planning report.
This is likely to be some time in the first or second week of September.”
We have also asked the council to bring the NHAH plans before the new Major
Developments Team.
You can make your comments:
* online via the council Planning Website www.harrow.gov.uk then “Planning” then “Application
Search” ref P/1953/10 ”Make Comment”
* to the Planning Case Officer, Mr Stanley Lau, Harrow Council Planning Services,
Civic Centre, Harrow HA1 2UY ref P/1953/10
You may remember the previous planning application P/2376/08 submitted
by BWF in 2008 was unanimously refused by Harrow Planning Committee in June
2009 for the following summarised reasons:
* unsafe development with high risk of flooding elsewhere
* excessive bulk, overbearing, over-dominant
* excessive site coverage and increase in on-street parking with associated
disturbance, an over-intensive use, an overdevelopment of the site to the detriment
of neighbouring residential amenity, the free flow and safety of vehicular
traffic and pedestrians and to the area’s character and appearance
The nursing home and flats (which were to have partly funded the development) are now gone, reducing the height and bulk, however the length and overall impact appears much the same.
All parking is now at ground level, 31 car spaces plus motorbike and bicycle space, which we believe to be quite inadequate for the proposed uses.
Another change is that the male gym (Basement -2) is now increased in size
from 178 to 269 sq m whereas the female gym and Beauty Salon (Basement -1)
have been reduced from 171 + 29 to 107 + 17 sq m
(figures are Gross Internal Floor Area taken from the 2010 Transport Assessment).
Most of the HRA committee and many local residents attended the BWF Public
Exhibition of the revised plans on 19 June. Many members also attended the
HRA AGM on 21 June.
The strong current of feeling was clear, that the basic objections raised to
the original plan (including those of the residents) have not been sufficiently
answered. We are of the opinion that:
* this commercial development is out-of-place in a residential area
* it remains intrusive and overbearing to neighbours
* no proper consultation has been carried out
* the design is out-of-character for the local area
* parking provision is inadequate
* it is not needed - or wanted - by the local community
Below are some pertinent extracts from the Planning Statement referred
to above. Please see the full document for more detail.
1.5 “providing an outstanding Community Centre for their members’ own
use but with the ability to serve a wider community” [our underlining]
1.10 “ the design concept , which has not been subject of any reason
for refusal or criticism by the council, has been maintained .” [We
feel this is contradicted in the 2009 “reasons for refusal” given
above.]
1.19 “a PPS25 Sequential Test Report was submitted in April and the council
have confirmed by letter date 29th June 2010 that they accept its conclusions
i.e. that there are no other reasonably available sites suitable and appropriate
for the proposal.” [The Kodak site does not appear to have been considered.]
3.17 “The current anticipated cost of construction is £12m which, together with £4m for land acquisition costs and anticipated total professional fees of £1.5m; making a total of £17.5m.”
3.18 “Whilst BWF Ltd intends to apply for funding from various sources; including Local, Central Government and Europe, it will predominantly rely upon private well-wishers both from its own community, locally and nationally.” [our underlining]
3.34 “Dr Merali has continued to have numerous discussions and meetings with members of other faiths and organisations.” [Yet he has not approached the HRA].
6.11 “As previously stated there have been occasional weddings” … “Notwithstanding the fact that no records were kept it is estimated that upwards of 1,000 people have attended these events in the past.
For the proposed development, it is envisaged that the number of attendees to a wedding service will be kept to a maximum of 600 people. “
14.11 [LONDON BOROUGH OF HARROW UDP] “Policy C10: Community Buildings and Places of Worship states:-
“C10. The council will seek to maintain and retain existing premises
used by community or religious groups in the borough. In considering proposals
for new facilities; the council will ensure that the proposed development:-
(a) is located in the catchment population it serves;
(b) is accessible and well served by a Range of transport options including Public transport;
(c) has no significant adverse impact on Neighbouring properties and does not detract from the visual amenity of the area; and
(d) provides appropriate levels of car parking and would not have an adverse
effect on highway safety”.
[We believe this development fails on grounds (a), (c) and (d).
On page 3 of the 2008 Transport Statement: “people wishing to use the Centre ‘main’ facilities [includes sports hall, gym, prayer hall, community space] will first need to sign up as Members/Group Members on a yearly basis”.
On page 16 of the 2010 Transport Assessment “Apart from the use of the Prayer Halls, the facility will be managed through the use of membership of the NHCC. This will be regulated for the Children’s Play Centre, the Sports Hall, Gymnasiums, and the Library. “
From the PPS25 Sequential Test Evidence Base:
4.4 “As a summary, of the 14 sites identified, 3 are considered available
to accommodate the proposed development,” … “and the remaining
site is located in Kenton East, which is a considerable distance from the existing
community at North Harrow and consequently would not serve the existing community
in North Harrow.”
[Yet the Kodak site does not appear to have been considered and we believe this proposed development does not serve the North Harrow community.]
For the latest details, use the “Contact Us” page or enquiry@headstoneresidentsassociation.co.uk