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 October 2017.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2017 were agreed as an accurate record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor 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. 

Councillor Lucy Ivimy declared a non pecuniary interest in respect of 12 and 14 Wellesley Avenue as she lived nearby and knew a number of the objectors. She remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.

In view of members of the public present for particular applications the Chair proposed that the agenda be re-ordered, with which the Committee agreed, and the minutes reflect the order of the meeting

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which made minor changes to the report.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application by the Applicant’s agent. Some of the points raised included: a mixture of changing teaching methods and statutory requirements necessitated the need for additional space. The application was for a temporary change of use only. No external works were required and only minor internal conversion work was required. There was no scope for the another site to be used and there was no increase in pupil numbers associated with the application.

Councillor Karmel formally proposed an amendment to condition 1 which would permit the proposed use for a limited period of ‘up to’ five years.

The Committee voted on application 2017/02684/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of approval and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

9

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

The Committee also unanimously resolved to approve the amendment to Condition 1.

            RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017/02684/FUL be approved subject to the changes set out in the Addendum.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

Councillor Lucy Ivimy declared a non pecuniary interest in respect of 12 and 14 Wellesley Avenue as she lived nearby and knew some of the objectors. She decided to remain in the meeting, and participated and voted on the item.

Officers drew the Committee’s attention to the addendum and corrected the error in relation to Councillors Morton and Fiske being cited incorrectly as Ward Councillors for Ravenscourt Park ward.

The Committee heard a representation from the Applicant in support of the application. Some of the points raised included: the proposal was a high quality design, amended drawings had been submitted to address concerns which had been raised and it was similar in design to an adjacent building. Further points included: the proposal was not overly dominant, there would be limited overlooking, the tall elements of the design were set back,  B1 usage was appropriate for the site and no trees would be removed during construction.

The Committee heard a representation in objection to the proposal from two residents. Some of the points included: the proposal was detrimental to the street scene, it was a tall building which would create overlooking and privacy issues and would cause parking stress. Additional points included: the proposal would not reduce vehicular movements in the area, goods and services deliveries would be disruptive, the sunlight and daylight forecasts were not realistic and overall the design was overwhelming.

Councillor Harry Phibbs spoke as a Ward Councillor. He highlighted that a great number of residents had written to the Council expressing a number of valid concerns. He explained that the existing building was attractive and the scale and design of the proposal was alien to the surrounding environment. Further points included: it would be damaging to the conservation area and increase traffic locally.

The Committee discussed the existing building, the height and design of the proposal in the context of the local area and conservation area, as well as privacy and right to light issues.

The Committee voted on application 2017/02065/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of refusal. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

9

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017/02065/FUL be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

Officers provided a comprehensive overview of the proposal and highlighted the main planning considerations. Officers explained to members the reason why the planning application was brought back to the Committee for further consideration.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application by the Applicant’s agent. Some of the points raised included: The proposal would define the north side of Lyric Square and provide employment at ground floor level. The improved scheme included: a building line which had been pulled back by 3 metres on Hammersmith Grove maintaining the line of the existing building and a façade which had been pulled back by 4 metres. The building scale had been adjusted to reduce the scale of the proposal on Beadon and Glenthorne Road and the loss of 3 Hammersmith Grove was justified in the context of the design.  The proposal would also create new retail and gallery spaces, provide a distinguished building and the appeal for the previous scheme would be withdrawn.

Councillor Alex Karmel commented that a decision on the application had been made at the previous meeting. As such, he would not be voting on the item.

During the course of discussions, the Committee explored a number of issues which included: the increased height, changed building lines, the loss of the building of merit and the applications’ spatial context. Other points included: the shortfall in relation to carbon reduction targets which could be ameliorated through an offset payment, transport considerations and need for a comprehensive travel plan to be submitted.

The Committee voted on application 2017/02717/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of approval for the reasons set out in the planning report and addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

6

Against:

2

Not Voting:

1

          RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017/02717/FUL be approved for the reasons set out in the report and addendum.

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the additional letters of objection which had been received since the agenda was published.

The Committee heard a representation in objection to the application by two members of the Shepherds Bush Market Tenants Association. Some of the points raised included: The containers were sited without permission and the proposal was a retrospective application to legitimise this action. The application failed to safeguard the local community, the containers were an eyesore and a temporary solution failed to address the long term needs of the market. A s106 agreement should be imposed on the site so that the timescales associated with the change of use terms could not be extended. 

The Committee heard a representation from the Applicant. Some of the points raised included: the rationale behind the application was to increase footfall in the area which was at an all-time low and to enhance commercial opportunities. The containers provided affordable workspace and supported food and beverage sales as well as storage facilities. The Applicant was committed to the long term success of the market. If the application were approved, it would bring investment to the existing market.

In the course of discussions, the Committee sought clarification regarding the removal of the second storey of containers and the implications of extending the two-year permission. Further points raised included: the consultation process which differed from the September 2017 application, potential noise to neighbouring residential properties and whether soft landscaping might be used to mitigate against increased noise.

The Committee voted on application 2017/03851/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of approval and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

8

Against:

1

Not Voting:

0

          RESOLVED THAT:

Planning Application 2017/03851/FUL be approved for the reasons set out in the report and addendum

Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application by the Applicant. Some of the points raised included:there were a number of economic and public benefits of the scheme that aligned with the Opportunity Area policies. The proposal would provide further retail space as well as two public squares. The proposal site will be the first site in London to commit to a defined, output based offer for entrepreneurs and SME’s. Details were provided about the inducements on offer to encourage early adopters to the site.

The Committee discussed the height, the detailed comments received from neighbours as well as the feedback from the GLA. Further concerns included: the views of residents from Wood Lane, the impact of general development on local residents and need to apportion section 106 monies accordingly. Finally, the impact on the microclimate and prevalence of wind tunnels was discussed.

The Committee voted on application 2016/04452/COMBand whether to agree the officer recommendation of approval and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

9

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

          RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2016/04452/COMB be approved for the reasons set out in the report.

/AI7>

<TRAILER_SECTION>