Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 March 2016.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 9 March 2016 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Robert Largan.

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. 

The Chair, Councillor Adam Connell declared a significant interest in respect of Land North of Westfield Shopping Centre, Ariel Way, London, Shepherd’s Bush Green 2015/05217/RES as he is employed as an Area HR Manager by Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd which are a direct competitor of the John Lewis Partnership, which also has an anchor site in the site covered by the application. He considered that this did give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests and, in the circumstances he would not participate in the discussion and the vote thereon and would withdraw from the meeting whilst the item was considered.

In view of members of the public present for particular applications and the need for the Chair to hand over to the Vice-Chair for the Land North of Westfield Shopping Centre, Ariel Way, London, Shepherd’s Bush Green 2015/05217/RES, the Chair proposed that the agenda be re-ordered, with which the Committee agreed, and the minutes reflect the order of the meeting.

During discussions Members requested clarification on the status of the two cases which were ongoing. It was also confirmed by officers that when enforcement is served that the applicant cannot make a retrospective application to further delay the process. 

At the request of Councillor Karmel, it was agreed that next year’s performance review would include details of (Section 70) cases where applicants had tried to get round enforcement by submitting additional and retrospective applications. 

It was also confirmed by officers that enforcement can be a long process taking between 9-12 months in some cases because a reasonable time period has to be allocated. It was also stated that where there are delays the ‘Proceeds from Crime Act’ only applies once prosecution has taken place.  

The Chair thanked officers for their presentation. 

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted. 

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

The meeting was adjourned at the request of the Chair, between 19.35 and 19.45, to allow time to switch projectors due to some technical difficulties. 

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from the  Project Director from Genesis Housing on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the scheme benefited the area with their regeneration aspirations and provided a significant infrastructure contribution. He added that it would provide homes and jobs and would also help to achieve housing targets as well as providing a good mix of affordable homes. He concluded by stating that it was a long term investment in the area and that they had worked hard with partners and officers to provide a great quality design which would bring a derelict site back into use.

Councillor Cartwright commented that he was appalled by the proposal.  He felt the proposal was being pushed through with indecent haste, therefore, it should be deferred until after the Mayoral elections.. He also felt that it should go back to the OPDC’s Design Review Panel as they had only commented on the design at an early point in its development. 

Councillor Nsumbu commented that the issue was not the massing or the height but the design process itself. She also felt the building was unattractive and disappointing. She also stated that she felt the affordable housing mix was just right.  Councillor Ivimy commented that the design was appalling and had not been well thought out. She was also concerned about how the proposal sat in the wider context of the Master Plan for the area and that it would be damaging to the setting of the Grand Union Canal. Councillor Cassidy commented that it felt very rushed and that the design aside residents would consider it to have been railroaded through. 

Councillor Karmel commented that it maybe appropriate to add a Grampian condition where current access to the site did not take into account future density for the area and was not within the applicant’s control. He also stated that there was so much information missing from the proposal and gave the examples of traffic surveys and travel assessments. He also expressed concerns around the proposed nursery provision. He went on to state that it would also be a good idea for the proposal to go before the Hammersmith and Fulham Design and Review Panel.  He proposed taking out the 2nd bullet point in 3.1.4 of the report. 

Officers advised that a Grampian condition maybe difficult to include in the recommendations. 

3.1.4 - 2nd Bullet in the report 

Nursery (if provided) - 50% nursery related jobs to be offered to unemployed residents of LBHF with commitment of industry specific training being offered on the back of guaranteed interviews of LBHF residents.

The proposal was put to the vote and members agreed to leave it in. 

Vote 

For 1

Against 7 

Not Voting 1

Councillor Karmel went on to express  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46b

The meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes between 21.10 and 21.20 to give Members a comfort break.

Please see the Addendum Report for further details.

The above two applications were considered together.  During discussions regarding the application Members clarified some of the details of the proposal with officers.

The Committee voted on the planning applications 2015/05684/FUL and 2015/05685/FUL the result was that Members unanimously agreed both applications.

RESOLVED THAT:

Applications 2015/05684/FUL and 2015/05685/FUL be approved subject to the conditions and legal agreement set out in the report and the addendum.

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

The Chair, Councillor Connell, withdrew from the meeting. The Vice-Chair, Councillor Cassidy, assumed the role of Chair. 

Officers referred members to some changes in the addendum report relating to pages 20 and 86 of the report. 

During discussions regarding the application Members clarified some of the details of the proposal with officers.  Councillor Karmel expressed concern that the design was bland and that the colouring would fade in the future. 

Councillor Chumnery expressed concern regarding additional cars and the potential impact on air quality and pollution.  Councillor Perez asked about employment for residents.  She was assured by officers that there would be a greater drive during phase two of the development and that priority for jobs would be given to local residents.  Councillor Nsumbu stated that she fully supported the proposals. 

The Committee voted on the planning application 2015/05217/RES and the result was that Members unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED THAT:

Application 2015/05217/RES be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the addendum. 

Councillor Adam Connell declared a significant interest in respect of the application 2015/05217/RES related to Westfield Shopping Centre, Ariel Way, London, Shepherd’s Bush Green. He did not participate in the discussions nor  vote thereon.  He left the meeting whilst the item was considered.