Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 December 2016.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 14 December 2016be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings.

None.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter.  The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Audit, Pensions and Standards Committee. 

Councillor Wesley Harcourt declared an interest in respect of the briefing on Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation. He is the LBHF delegate sitting on the ODPC Planning Committee. He considered that this did not give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests and, in the circumstances it would be reasonable to participate in the item.

Councillor Alex Karmel declared an interest in respect of Stamford Bridge Grounds, Fulham Road, London SW6 1HS as he is a Chelsea fan and several years ago had a share of a season ticket. He considered that this did not give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest and, in the circumstances it would be reasonable to participate in the discussion and vote thereon.

Note: The Stamford Bridge Grounds application will start at 7.30pm in the Assembly Hall – following a briefing from the Old Oak & Park Royal Development Corporation.

Councillor Wesley Harcourt declared an interest in respect of the briefing on Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation. He is the LBHF delegate sitting on the ODPC Planning Committee. He considered that this did not give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests and, in the circumstances it would be reasonable to participate in the item.

A briefing was provided by Michael Mulhern on behalf of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation.

RESOLVED THAT:

The briefing was noted.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes for further details. In addition, two further representations were received 11 January (post publication of the Addendum) from Flat 4, 438 Fulham Road, SW6 and Alpha Planning Ltd (on behalf of residents in Hilary Close, SW6)

Councillor Alex Karmel declared an interest in respect of Stamford Bridge Grounds, Fulham Road, London SW6 1HS as he is a Chelsea fan and several years ago had a share of a season ticket. He considered that this did not give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest and, in the circumstances it would be reasonable to participate in the discussion and vote thereon.

At the start of the meeting, the Chair explained that due to the high level of public interest in the application, he had used his discretion and rather than the 10-minute maximum (5 minutes for, 5 minutes against), he had decided to allow members of the public address the committee for a total of 30 minutes. Based on the number of representations received, the Chair allocated 9 minutes to those in favour of the application and 21 minutes to those opposed to it.

Following the meeting, all registered speakers were contacted by Committee Services  and given the opportunity to submit their speaking notes for the public record. Those received are appended to the minutes for reference.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application by the Applicant, Agent and a respondent in support of the application. A number of points were raised and included:

·         The stadium was of architectural distinction and would become one of the world’s most distinguished sports venues.

·         The stadium would contribute greatly to London’s visitor economy and to the social and economic prosperity of the local community.

·         Extensive consultation was conducted between the project team, Council officers and technical consultees to ensure that all relevant planning issues associated with the scheme were addressed.

·         Extensive consultation was carried out with residents, local amenity groups and numerous i.e. organisations Transport for London, Network Rail, The Royal Parks, the Metropolitan Police and the Greater London Authority.

·         Consultation events held at Stamford Bridge Stadium and were well attended.

·         The stadium design was well received by the council’s Design Review Panel.

·         Numerous design amendments had been made including:

                     I.        Reconfiguration of the decking platforms over the railways, particularly to the east, to cut back from neighbouring residential properties.

                    II.        Increased perimeter planting.

                  III.        Revised landscape proposals to increase greening and improve bio-diversity.

                  IV.        Incorporation of on-site renewable and low energy in the form of a CHP plant.

                   V.        Changes made to the roof and refining the façade treatment.

                  VI.        Reduction in parking spaces; and changes to the accessibility statement.

·         Comprehensive Environmental Statement, Transport Assessment and Travel Plan and Outline Construction and Logistics Plan had been submitted.

·         On-going consultation with those neighbours with particular sensitivities throughout the design development and construction process would be held.

·         The proposed development was compliant with the development plan.

The Committee heard representations against the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13b