Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 February 2016.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 10 February 2016 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings, subject to the following amendments:

It was proposed by Councillor Connell that on page two of the minutes (ii) Impact on residents’ amenity - Adverse impact on daylight. One of the reasons for refusal be removed. This was seconded by Councillor Aherne.

The Committee voted on this proposal and it was unanimously agreed.

Councillor Karmel on behalf of Councillor Ivimy who could not be at the meeting requested that the following be changed on page two of the minutes to read (iii) Highways - Unacceptable pick-up and drop-off arrangements for students generally as well as at the start and end of terms.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lucy Ivimy.

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 Alex Karmel declared a significant interest in respect of 3 St Peter's Square, W6 9AB, Ravenscourt Park, 2015/01357/FUL and 2015/01358/LBC, as he personally knew the parties involved but had not discussed these applications with them. 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 discussion and vote thereon.

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a significant interest in respect of 9, Delaford Street, London, SW6 7LT, Fulham Broadway, 2015/05604/FUL, as he personally knew some of the objectors and was an LEA appointed governor of Sir John Lillie School but had not discussed these applications with them. 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 discussion and vote thereon.

Councillor Robert Largan declared a significant interest in respect of 3 St Peter's Square, W6 9AB, Ravenscourt Park, 2015/01357/FUL and 2015/01358/LBC, as he knew one objector but had not discussed these applications with him. 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 discussion and vote thereon.

Councillor Viya Nsumbu declared a significant interest in respect of 3 St Peter's Square, W6 9AB, Ravenscourt Park, 2015/01357/FUL and 2015/01358/LBC, as she knew the Applicant and one objector but had not discussed these applications with them. She 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 discussion and vote thereon.

The above two applications were considered together.

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a significant interest in respect of 3 St Peter's Square, W6 9AB, Ravenscourt Park, 2015/01357/FUL and 2015/01358/LBC, 

as he personally knew the parties involved but had not discussed these applications with them. 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 discussion and vote thereon.

Councillor Robert Largan declared a significant interest in respect of 3 St Peter's Square, W6 9AB, Ravenscourt Park, 2015/01357/FUL and 2015/01358/LBC, as he knew one objector but had not discussed these applications with him. 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 discussion and vote thereon.

Councillor Viya Nsumbu declared a significant interest in respect of 3 St Peter's Square, W6 9AB, Ravenscourt Park, 2015/01357/FUL and 2015/01358/LBC, as she knew the Applicant and one objector but had not discussed these applications with them. She 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 discussion and vote thereon.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from the architect for the scheme who was representing the applicant. He said there were two main points. That the setting was not that of an unaltered building in a preserved state and that the design would improve the flat and enhance the listed building work. 

The Committee heard representations against the application from a local resident. He stated that the consistent proportions of the properties in the street made it special. That the proposed application would spoil what remained and that officers should attach greater emphasis on conservation concerns. 

Discussing the application, a number of members of the Committee expressed concern at the lack of comments in the report regarding the judicial review findings on the conservation area. That the application did not favour the conservation area, was of poor design and did impact unacceptably on neighbouring properties.

The Committee voted on the planning application 

The Committee voted on planning applications 2015/01357/FUL and 2015/01358/LBC and the results were as follows:

For:             1

Against:       8

Not Voting:  0

RESOLVED THAT:

That planning applications 2015/01357/FUL and 2015/01368/LBC be refused on the grounds:

(i)            The design would not enhance or preserve the character/appearance of the property or the conservation area

(ii)          The proposal would adversely affect the setting of the property and neighbouring (listed) buildings

(iii)         The proposal would adversly impact on the neighbours’ amenity – unneighbourghly (bedroom window at no.4)

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a significant interest in respect of 9, Delaford Street, London, SW6 7LT, Fulham Broadway, 2015/05604/FUL, as he personally knew some of the objectors and was an LEA appointed governor of Sir John Lillie School but had not discussed these applications with them. 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 discussion and vote thereon.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from the architect on behalf of the applicant. He said that the scheme benefited the area with additional housing and was of a suitable quality design. He also stated that it was sensitive to neighbours concerns and satisfied the local planning policy. 

The Committee heard representations against the application from a local resident. She stated that it was an overdevelopment of the area and that the street was at tipping point. That family homes were needed in the area and that the proposal would add to the decimation of back gardens and also present an additional parking issue. 

The Committee heard representations on the application from Councillor Ben Coleman who was concerned about the additional recycling and refuse and bike storage. He also expressed concern regarding the 2nd floor flat roof being used as a terrace and potential overlooking as well as the loss of family homes. That there would be an impact on the local school roll and an increase in the risk of traffic accidents from the building work. He felt the outcome for the street would not be positive. 

Councillor Alex Karmel proposed, seconded by Councillor Michael Cartwright, an amendment the condition 10. To reflect the flat roof was on the 2nd floor.

• Condition 10, on page 10 of the report, first line, to read. No alterations shall be made to the roof of the rear extension on the 2nd floor herby approved.

Discussing the application, a number of members of the Committee expressed concern that more family homes were needed and not poor standard small flats. That the bike storage and refuse and recycling arrangements were inadequate and that the obscured glazing living conditions were not ideal. 

The Committee voted on planning application 2015/05604/FUL and the results were as follows:

For:             1

Against:       8 

Not Voting:  0

RESOLVED THAT:

That planning application 2015/05604/FUL be refused on the grounds:

(i)            Lack of emergency egress from lightwell

(ii)          Overdevelopment of application property

(iii)         Poor quality of living accomodation in first floor flat because glazed with obscured glass

(iv)         Inadequate provision for refuse and recycling

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes for further details.

During discussions regarding the application Members clarified some of the details of the proposal with officers.

The Committee voted on the planning application 2015/05053/FUL and the result was that Members unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED THAT:

Application 2015/05053/FUL be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes for further details.

During discussions regarding the application Members clarified some of the details of the proposal with officers.

The Committee voted on the planning application 2015/04568/VAR and the result was that Members unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED THAT:

Application 2015/04568/VAR be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.