Agenda and minutes

To approve as an accurate record, and the Chair to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7^th November 2017.

RESOLVED THAT:

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2017 were agreed as an accurate record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Viya Nsumbu and Councillor Lucy Ivimy.

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 Alex Karmel declared a pecuniary interest in respect of 62 Lillie Road as the applicant was his sister and he had an interest in the property. He left the meeting and did not participate in the item.

Councillor Alex Karmel declared an interest in respect of 3 St Peter’s Square as he knew one of the objectors. He stayed in the meeting and voted on the item.

Councillor Jacqueline Borland declared an interest in respect of 3 St Peter’s Square as she knew one of the objectors. She stayed in the meeting and voted on the item.

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 from a representative of the Sands End Community Centre Delivery Group. Some of the points raised included: the community centre would provide a wonderful opportunity to improve community cohesion, increase social interaction and increase social integration. A variety of uses were planned which included: as a meeting place, for recreational use, a dance space, exercise and for general flexible use. It was confirmed that the centre would be community led and organised and overseen by a Community Trust. The applicant had worked closely with officers throughout the application process and the Architects design echoed many elements from the original lodge.

The Committee voted on application 2017/03997/FR3 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:

0

Not Voting:

0

            RESOLVED THAT:

That application  2017/03997/FR3 be approved subject to the changes set out in the Addendum.

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

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a pecuniary interest in respect of 62 Lillie Road as the applicant was his sister and he had an interest in the property. He left the meeting and did not participate in the item.

The Committee voted on application 2017/02180/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of refusal (Recommendation A) and that enforcement action (Recommendation B) should be taken. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

Recommendation A – that the application be refused

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

Recommendation B – That the Head of Legal Services be authorised to institute appropriate enforcement and/or Legal proceedings as set out in the report.

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017/02180/FUL be refused and that the Head of Legal Services be authorised to institute proceedings as set out in the report.

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

Councillor Alex Karmel declared a pecuniary interest in respect of 62 Lillie Road as the applicant was his sister and he had an interest in the property. He left the meeting and did not participate in the item.

The Committee voted on application 2017/02181/LBC and whether to agree the officer recommendation of refusal (Recommendation A) and that enforcement action (Recommendation B) should be taken. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

Recommendation A – that the application be refused.

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

Recommendation B – That the Head of Legal Services  be authorised to institute appropriate enforcement and/or Legal proceedings as set out in the report.

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017/02181/LBC be refused and that the Head of Legal Services be authorised to institute proceedings as set out in the report.

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

The Chair requested both parties to speak for a maximum of 5 minutes on both applications. This was agreed by both the residents in objection and the representatives of the applicant.

The Committee heard a representation in objection to the application by one resident on behalf of two immediate neighbours. Some of the points raised included: St Peter’s Square was a jewel in the crown of Hammersmith’s architectural heritage. The application site was the largest in the immediate area and had already been extended in a number of ways. Four planning applications had already been refused by the Authority and the case for refusal was well set out in the officer report.

The Committee heard a representation from the Architect and Agent in support of the Applicant. Some of the points raised included: Every single home in the area had been extended and these varied considerably in size and scale. The design was modest and in keeping with the dwelling. The application, if approved, would not impact on Number 4 St Peter’s Square and concerns about overlooking could be overcome by sympathetic planting. The appeal decision, did not preclude the application being considered on its merits.

The Committee voted on application 2017/02970/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation of refusal and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

RESOLVED THAT:

Planning Application 2017/02970/FUL be refused for the reasons set out in the report and addendum

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

A resident spoke in objection and the Architect and Agent spoke in support of the Applicant. The points raised are listed above in application 2017/02970/FUL.

The Committee voted on application 2017/02971/LBC and whether to agree the officer recommendation of refusal for listed building consent. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:

For:

8

Against:

0

Not Voting:

0

          RESOLVED THAT:

That application 2017/02971/LBC be refused for the reasons set out in the report.