Agenda and minutes

 Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Michael Cartwright.

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 Adam Connell declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Fulham Cross School as his partner was a Director (School Governor) of Fulham College Academy Trust. He had not discussed the application with them. He remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as he had friends which lived on Ravenscourt Road. He had not discussed the application with them. He remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Fulham Football Club. As a local resident he had received free tickets to a match at Craven Cottage. He remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Councillor Lucy Ivimy declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as she knew one of the objectors. She remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Councillor Jacqueline Borland declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as she knew an objector but had not discussed the application. She remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Councillor Viya Nsumbu declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as she knew one of the objectors but had not discussed the application. She remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

In view of members of the public present for particular applications, the Chair proposed that the agenda be re-ordered, with which the Committee agreed, and the minutes reflect the order of the meeting.

At the start of the meeting, Committee was informed Councillor Michael Cartwright had provided his apologies for absence as he was unwell. The Committee noted this was his last Planning and Development Control Committee meeting and thanked him for his input to the Committee over the last four years.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which made minor changes to the report.

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as he had friends which lived on Ravenscourt Road. He had not discussed the application with them. He remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Councillor Lucy Ivimy declared a non- pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as she knew one of the objectors. She remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Councillor Jacqueline Borland declared a non- pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as she knew an objector but had not discussed the application. She remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Councillor Viya Nsumbu declared a non- pecuniary interest in respect of 101 And 105 - 107 Stamford Brook Arches as she knew one of the objectors but had not discussed the application. She remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

The Committee heard a representation in objection to the application from a local resident. Some of the points raised included: The proposal was located in a conservation area and data provided by the applicant in support of the proposal, was flawed, as the Vauxhall Bridge location was dissimilar to the proposed residential location. Customer numbers would be higher than those stated by the applicant and there would greater, noise, nuisance and disturbance to local residents, especially at weekends. The hours of operation were not suitable for a residential location. The proposal would have a negative impact on the highway and cause parking stress locally. Residents had not had a fair opportunity to be heard and should the application be approved, it would an example of bias to the applicant.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application by the Centre Manager. Some of the points raised included: The proposal had been refined since the February 2018 meeting and steps had been taken to engage with a local residents spokesperson. Noting the comments at the previous meeting, the entrance had been changed from Ravenscourt Place to Ravenscourt Road. No single day events would be held and no alcohol would be sold. Amplified music would not be played. The proposed hours of operation had been amended so that on week days, the centre would close at 10:30 pm. The start time in the mornings was not unreasonable as many local gyms opened at 6 am. It was anticipated that regular residents events would be held and it has hoped the Committee would make a decision at the meeting as delays were proving costly.

The Committee considered the consultation which had been undertaken since February and noted the discord between residents and the applicant. On balance, the Committee felt there needed to be adequate time for further consultation to be undertaken by the applicant before a decision could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Fulham Football Club. As a local resident he had received free tickets to a match at Craven Cottage. He remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

Introducing the report, officers confirmed that three late letters of objection had been received from local residents. Officers explained that the Port of London Authority had withdrawn their objection and it was likely, that should the application be approved, a river licence would be granted.

The Committee heard representations in objection to the application from three local residents. Some of the points raised included: The officer report was misleading and the effect the proposal would have on prevailing wind conditions was significant. Should the application be approved, it would prove extremely difficult to sail past the stadium. Contrary to the officer understanding, the Port of London Authority hoped the application was refused. The proposal would result in 200 day activities days throughout the year which would be disruptive to local residents. The riverside walk would be closed on match days and on the event days which meant it would be closed to residents for the majority of the time. The proposal would result in increased noise and disruption and affect the local park.

The Committee heard a representation in support from the Applicant. Some of the points raised included: The football ground was part of the fabric of the local area. During the consultation phase, 95% of respondents had stated that they wished the Club to remain at Craven Cottage. The Club had ambitions for promotion and expansion / commercial development was necessary. The Club was keen to create a destination and waterfront front attraction which could be enjoyed by supporters and local residents. The current proposal was different to the one which was submitted in 2013 and had less impact on local wind conditions. The proposed riverside walkway would enhance and connect the Thames Path. The Club accepted the proposal would affect local residents  and park users and was committed to taking mitigating actions through s106 contributions.

Councillor Donald Johnson spoke as a ward Councillor. Some of the points raised included: The non match day commercial activity proposals had been submitted at the latest possible opportunity. Up to 200 events for up to 5,000 people would have a detrimental effect on the local area. He had attended one of the Clubs consultation events on 19 December 2017 and had been informed that there were no significant plans for commercial events. The Saudi Super Cup in 2014 was cited as an example of a poorly managed commercial event and how this could have a negative impact on local residents. Further concerns were raised about traffic impacts and the effect on blue light response times and the impact on Bishops Park. Closing his remarks, he stated that the riverside walk should remain open and that ideally, the application should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

The Committee heard a representation in objection from a resident. Some of the points raised included: the proposal was contrary to the Design Access Statement and the design incorporated bay windows which had not been added to numbers 53 to 63 Ellerby Street and so would look incongruous. The design did not enhance or preserve the conservation area.  The height of the proposed rear extension exceeded 3.3 metres, the height allowed under permitted development. The rear bay window should either be not permitted or conditioned to incorporate obscure glazing to address overlooking and privacy concerns.

During the course of discussions, the Committee explored a number of issues including the 45 degree angle and whether this still applied, the height of the proposed rear extension, which the Committee agreed was overbearing and the incorporation of the bay window. The Committee also considered the overlooking aspects of the bay window design and agreed that should the application be approved; these windows would need to incorporate obscure glazing. Councillor Alex Karmel proposed the condition that the bay window overlooking 59 Ellerby Street should be glazed or fixed shut. This was seconded by Councillor Lucy Ivimy.

The Committee voted on application 2017/03156/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of approval set out in the report and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

4

Against:

5

Not Voting:

0

The Committee then voted on a motion to refuse the application. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

4

Against:

5

Not Voting:

0

RESOLVED THAT:

That the officer recommendation of approval be overturned  and application 2017/03156/FUL be refused due to the unneighbourly and over baring design, the failure to enhance or preserve the conservation area and  the height of the rear extension.

Introducing the report, officers confirmed that amended drawings had been submitted by the applicant which had increased the private amenity space from 6 to 8 metres compared to required 36 metres. In addition, the Applicant had provided marketing information for the proposal for 9 months, compared to the required 12-month period.

The Committee heard a representation in support from the Agent. Some of the points raised included: The Applicant had worked closely with the Council at the pre-application stages and had been led to believe a decision of approval would be made under delegated authority. The proposal enhanced the commercial space. Updated marketing materials had been submitted to the Authority.

Discussing the application, the Committee noted that the proposal was contrary to policies E1 and E2 and that 12 months of marketing materials had not been supplied but were required. The Committee considered that the scheme was overly dense and constituted an over development of the site. In addition, Members asked about the nature of the pre-application advice which had been sought by the Applicant. In response, officers confirmed that all pre-application advice included a caveat which clearly stated that an approval of a planning application was not guaranteed. In this case, officers confirmed after detailed examination of the application had been conducted, the officer recommendation for the application was refusal.

The Committee voted on application 2017/04441/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation set out in the report and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:                  9

Against:           0

Not Voting:      0

RESOLVED:

That application 2017/04441/FUL be refused for the reasons set out in the Officer report and addendum.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

Councillor Adam Connell declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Fulham Cross School as his partner was a Director (School Governor) of Fulham College Academy Trust. He had not discussed the application with them. He remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

The Committee heard a representation in support from the Executive Principal. Points raised included: The school desperately needed to modernise its gym and science classrooms. The internal layout of the current science lab was poor and the gym was too small for a school of its size. The new gym would improve the sporting facilities of the school and the health and fitness of pupils. The application sought to enhance existing facilities and was not related to a growth in pupil numbers. The proposal would see the removal of a link corridor and modern building techniques would ensure the school became more energy efficient.

The Committee voted on application 2018/00136/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation set out in the report and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:                 9

Against:           0

Not Voting:      0

RESOLVED:

That application 2018/00136/FULbe approved for the reasons set out in the Officer report and addendum.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

The Agent attended but chose to waive his right to speak at the meeting.

The Committee voted on application 2017/04276/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation set out in the report and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:                  9

Against:           0

Not Voting:      0

            RESOLVED:

That application 2017/04276/FUL be approved:

1) Subject to there being no contrary direction from the Mayor for London,

that the Committee resolve that the Director for Planning & Development be

authorised to determine the application and grant permission upon the

completion of a satisfactory legal agreement and subject to the conditions

listed below;

2) To authorise the Director for Regeneration, Planning & Housing Services in consultation with the Director of Law and the Chair of the Planning and

Development Control Committee to make any minor changes to the

proposed conditions or heads of terms of the legal agreement. Any such

changes shall be within their discretion.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

The Committee voted on application 2017/04567/RES and whether to agree the officer recommendation set out in the report and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:                 9

Against:           0

Not Voting:      0

            RESOLVED:

That application 2017/04567/RES be approved for the reasons set out in the Officer report and addendum.

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 March 2018.

RESOLVED:

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2018 and 6 March 2018 were agreed as an accurate record.

In his closing remarks, the Chair expressed his thanks to officers and fellow Committee Members for their support over the last four years.