Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 April 2016.

Councillor Karmel requested the following amendment to the minutes, which was agreed by the Committee:

Item 46.2,Oaklands House, Old Oak Common Lane, London NW10 6DU, College Park and Old Oak 2016/00539/OBS, Page 3, second paragraph, delete “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” and replace with “He went on to state that it would also be a good idea had the proposal gone before the Hammersmith and Fulham Design and Review Panel prior to the Planning and Development Control Committee”.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 6 April 2016 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings, subject to the following amendment to the minutes:

Item 46.2,Oaklands House, Old Oak Common Lane, London NW10 6DU, College Park and Old Oak 2016/00539/OBS, Page 3, second paragraph, delete “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” and replace with “He went on to state that it would also be a good idea had the proposal gone before the Hammersmith and Fulham Design and Review Panel prior to the Planning and Development Control Committee”.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Elaine Chumnery.

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. 

There were no declarations of interest.

Officers requested to defer application 2015/02559/HAZ from consideration at the Committee as information had come to light concerning the basis for which the Order for revocation could be made under the Planning (Hazardous Substances Act 1990 (“the Act”). The current officer report recommended revocation under s.14(1) of the Act but did not sufficiently detail the alternative option of revocation of the HSC under s.14(2) of the Act. In weighing up the recommendation to revoke the HSC under s.14(1) officers had not sufficiently set out the reasons why this option was preferred to the alternative route of revoking the HSC under s.14(2) of the Act.

Officers considered that it would not be appropriate to capture the further justification in an Addendum and Members should have sufficient time to review the justification in order to fully understand the options open to the council in securing the revocation of the HSC. 

The Committee voted to defer the applicationfor revocation of the Hazardous Substances Consent and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED THAT:

To defer consideration at the Committee the application for revocation of the Hazardous Substances Consent

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

Councillor Karmel agreed that the amendment to the wording did accurately reflect the mood of the Committee and reiterated his previous concerns about the harm to the listed building caused by the proposed changes to the Council Chamber.

Councillor Ivimy proposed, seconded by Councillor Connell, that Councillor Karmel’s comments be recorded on the minutes, which the Committee agreed.

The Committee voted on planning application2015/04022/FUL and the Committee unanimously agreed.

            RESOLVED THAT:

The following revised wording (in italics and underlined) to the Council's heritage case, as set out in refusal reason 1 of the planning application 2015/04022/FUL, which is based on Counsel's advice, be amended:

‘The development would cause harm to visual amenity; harm to the character, appearance and setting of the listed building (comprising the 1888-1890 original Town Hall fronting Fulham Road, the 1904-1905 Harwood Road wing, and the 1934 extension fronting Fulham Road) and harm to the character and appearance of the Walham Green Conservation Area. The harm caused would not be outweighed by public benefits, which would not result in sustainable development. It has not been demonstrated that the development would represent the optimum viable use of the listed building.

More particularly the design, height and massing of the replacement building behind the retained façade of the 1934 extension and the design of the replacement windows at first, second and third floor levels in the front elevation of the 1934 extension together with the cumulative impact of alterations to the 1888-1890 original Town Hall and 1904-1905 Harwood Road elements of the building would cause harm to the character and appearance of the listed building which it is desirable to preserve in accordance with Section 16(2) and Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The design, height and massing of the replacement building behind the retained façade of the 1934 extension would fail to preserve the setting of the retained elements of the listed building which it is desirable to preserve in accordance with s.16(2) and s.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The design, height and massing of the replacement building behind the retained façade of the 1934 building; the design of the replacement windows at first, second and third floor levels in the front elevation of the 1934 building and the unneighbourly and over dominant extension to the Concert Hall (to the rear of the Cedarne Road terrace of Buildings of Merit) would cause harm to the character and appearance of the Walham Green Conservation Area (including views within and into the Conservation Area), which it is desirable to preserve in accordance with s.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

In these respects the proposal is contrary to paras 131, 132 and 134 of the NPPF; London Plan Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.8 and 7.9; Policy BE1 of the Core Strategy 2011; DM Local Plan Polices DM G1, DM  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.2