Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 March 2017.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee held on 14 March 2017 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings subject to the amendments below, item:

Adjacent to Cairns House, 291 Wandsworth Bridge, London, Sands End 2016/04701/ADV

That Councillor Largan’s vote against the application be recorded in the minutes.

Outside Walham Green Court, Waterford Road, London, Parsons Green and Walham 2016/04700/ADV

That Councillor Karmel proposed a first motion that the application be refused. He then proposed a second motion to request the item be deferred due to insufficient information. A vote was taken on this matter prior to resolving the item.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Lucy Ivimy and Viya Nsumbu

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.

The Chair proposed that the agenda be re-ordered, with which the Committee agreed, and the minutes reflect the order of the meeting.

Planning Enforcement Review 2016

During discussions Members requested clarification on the status of 275 Uxbridge Road and whether there was any action which could be taken given the unauthorised profits which had been made. Officers confirmed the case had been investigated by the Council’s fraud team and further action was not deemed to be in the public interest to pursue the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA). Members asked whether any financial proceeds had been seen and officers confirmed they would investigate this further. 

Members asked about those cases where planning consent had expired and if enforcement action could be taken? In response, officers explained interested parties would be encouraged to submit an application and then enforcement action could only be taken if the development caused harm.

The Chair thanked officers for their presentation. 

RESOLVED THAT:

That the report be noted. 

That officers be requested to provide an update on the status of 275 Uxbridge Road. Subsequent to the meeting, the Council were unable to establish any financial proceeds in respect of 275 Uxbridge Road.

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

The Committee voted on application 2016/01448/FULand the results were as follows:

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2016/01448/FUL be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and changes in the addendum.

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

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application by a representative of the Applicant. Some of the points raised included the close working with the Council to develop an attractive design, the use of high quality materials and the wide consultation which had occurred. Other points included there was no impact on daylight to adjacent occupiers, it supported the Hammersmith Town Centre concept and would provide 11 new homes.

Councillor Ffiske spoke as a Ward Councillor against the application. The points that were raised included: It was an unusual site, the design incorporated a massive increase in height to the street scene. If approval were granted, it would represent a marked departure from the Council’s normal approach, as the town centre usually stepped down in residential areas. If approved, it would set a precedent.

The Committee considered a first motion on application 2016/04025/FULon whether to accept the officer recommendation as set out in the report. The Committee voted against the officer recommendation.

The Chair proposed a second motion, to refuse planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Karmel. The results were as follows:

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

RESOLVED THAT:

That the officer recommendation of approval, be overturned and application 2016/04025/FUL be refused for the following reasons:

• The lack of affordable housing
• Concerns about air quality
• The incorporation of insufficient office space within the design
• Overshadowing and the impact on the garden of the adjacent respite home
• The overall design, scale and height of the proposal