Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 June 2016.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 8 June 2016 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adam Connell (Chair), Natalia Perez and Alex Karmel.

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.

At the start of the meeting, the Vice-Chair explained Mr Slaughter MP was registered to speak  and he had used his discretion to  allow Mr Slaughter to address the Committee first as he needed to attend a different meeting.

Mr Slaughter MP made a representation against the application. He listed a number of concerns including: lack of consultation by the developer with local residents, building regulations and access to the proposed properties, over development and density of accommodation in the area, lack of affordable housing contribution by the developer and the proposal marginally meeting the minimum standards of acceptable development standards.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application by the Architect on behalf of the applicant stating that this new application had complied with all of the requests made by the Local Authority. The size and scale of the original scheme had been reduced, two daylight and sunlight studies had been conducted to address right to light concerns, noise concerns would be addressed through the construction.

The Committee heard representations against the application from three residents. They listed a number of concerns including: overdevelopment, saturation of flats in the area, noise and disturbance, right to light, inadequate refuse  and cycle storage. Further concerns included: access and how the proposed stairways would be integrated into the scheme, lack of consultation by the developer and  not being compliant with the London Plan.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Councillor Sue Fennimore, Ward Councillor for Addison.

The Committee voted on planning application 2015/05734/FUL and the results were as follows:

For:                 0

Against:         7

Not Voting:    0

The Committee therefore decided not to agree the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application. It was then proposed by Councillor Cassidy and duly seconded that the proposal be refused on the following grounds:

(i)    Density would be too high

(ii)  Inadequate refuse, recycling and cycle storage would be provided

(iii)Impact on the existing stairway access

(iv)Design would not preserve or enhance the conservation area

(v)  Noise nuisance to neighbours from the proposed roof terraces

(vi)Impact on drainage, and lack of sustainable drainage provision

The Committee decided unanimously to agree these reasons for refusal.     

RESOLVED THAT:

Planning Application 2015/05734/FUL be refused on the following grounds:

(i)    Density would be too high

(ii)  Inadequate refuse, recycling and cycle storage would be provided

(iii)Impact on the existing stairway access

(iv)Design would not preserve or enhance the conservation area

(v)  Noise nuisance to neighbours from the proposed roof terraces

(vi)Impact on drainage, and lack of sustainable drainage provision

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

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from the agent. Some of the points he raised included the high quality of the design, improved A2 space, the provision of seven new dwellings and good public transport connectivity.

The Committee voted on planning application 2016/00573/FULand the results were as follows:

For:                 7

Against:         0

Not Voting:    0

RESOLVED THAT:

The application 2016/00573/FUL be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and Addendum.

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

The Committee heard representations from the Chairman of the Hammersmith Society. Some of the points he raised included the design incorporated some art deco elements evoking the buildings past, the design and materials were suitable for its location and the welcomed use of angled windows on the north elevation to Westway. He added that occupants should be granted access to the garden.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from the Architect. Some of the points he raised included the high quality of the design, the close dialogue with the Local Authority throughout the Planning process, the reduction in scale and height of the proposal, the ground floor had been raised as requested.

The Committee voted on planning application 2016/02387/FUL and the results were as follows:

For:                 7

Against:         0

Not Voting:    0

The Committee therefore decided to agree the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2016/02387/FUL be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report an Addendum and subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement.